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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–421 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–527

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION: STRENGTHENING MATH

AND SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,

LABOR, AND PENSIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

EXAMINING PROPOSED LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR THE

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, FOCUSING ON MATH AND SCIENCE

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND EDUCATION

JUNE 19, 2002

Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

JAMES M. JEFFORDS (I), Vermont

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

JACK REED, Rhode Island

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MIKE DeWINE, Ohio

J. MICHAEL MYERS, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

TOWNSEND LANGE MCNITT, Minority Staff Director

(III)

CONTENTS

STATEMENTS

Page

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 1

Colwell, Rita R., Director, National Science Foundation ..................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Glenn, John, Chairman of the Board of Directors, The John Glenn Institute

for Public Service and Public Policy ................................................................... 10

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Verner, Keith, Chief of Developmental Pediatrics and Learning, Pennsylvania

State University College of Medicine ................................................................. 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.: ....................................................

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 56

Senator Rockefeller .......................................................................................... 57

Jerome I. Friedman .......................................................................................... 58

Ioannis Miaoulis ............................................................................................... 59

Warren Washington ......................................................................................... 63

American Society of Mechanical Engineers .................................................... 65

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION: STRENGTHENING

MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:45 p.m., in Room

SD–430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Kennedy, (chairman of the committee), presiding.

Present: Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Mikulski, Clinton, and

Bond.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

The CHAIRMAN. We will come to order. We are expecting some of

our colleagues who will be joining us shortly, but I think we will

get started.

I want to thank Dr. Colwell, Dr. Verner and a very special welcome to an old and dear and valued friend, John Glenn, who is a

national treasure and a leading authority on math and science education, research and development.

The National Science Foundation has a distinguished history of

success and has made a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It has funded basic research leading to creation of Doppler

radar, speech recognition software, and even the World Wide Web

browsers many of us rely on today. Its education initiatives in the

late 1980s were the forerunner for the standards-based school reform that is now embraced throughout Federal, State, and local

education programs.

Today, NSF has two key functions: first, supporting high-end research and development in science, math, engineering and technology; and second, promoting cutting-edge math and science education reform and performance at the elementary, secondary, postsecondary and post-graduate levels. We look forward to hearing

about each of those functions today.

Advancements in biological and physical science often depend on

each other. Federal research and development funding has grown,

especially in the health sciences, over the last several years, which

has been very valuable in many areas. The National Institutes of

Health’s budget has doubled over the last 5 years. But we should

also work to grow support for research and development in theoretical mathematics and the physical sciences, not only because

2

they are valuable in their own right, but also because they support

advancements in the health sciences and other fields. In fact, we

have an urgent need to begin today to interest young minds in

math and science and to recruit tomorrow’s mathematicians and

engineers.

Over the next 10 years the number of jobs requiring technical

schools is projected to grow by 50 percent. Unfortunately, the number of American students studying math and science at the college

level has been flat over the last decade. High school student performance on international math and science exams is distressingly

low. And at a time that our Nation is growing more diverse, women

and minorities continue to shy away from the sciences.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, reviewing the

submitted testimony of others and moving forward with this reauthorization. We are honored to have such distinguished witnesses

today and look forward to their proposals to address these challenges as we reauthorize the National Science Foundation.

Of our three witnesses today, I would first like to welcome Dr.

Rita Colwell, Director of the National Science Foundation. Since

she became the director in 1998, Dr. Colwell has emphasized Kthrough-12 science and math education, graduate science and engineering education and training, and has tried to increase the participation of women and minorities in science and engineering.

Before coming to the NSF, Dr. Colwell was president of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute. She was also a member of the National Science Board from 1984 to 1990. Dr. Colwell

has received numerous accolades and honorary degrees. In addition, she was born in Beverly, MA. So, I am pleased to have Dr.

Colwell here today to update us on what NSF has been doing and

on the future plans for the agencies.

And we will have the presentation by our friend Senator John

Glenn, who is here with us today to discuss his views on secondary

education, the importance of math and science education. Following

Senator Glenn’s retirement from the United States Senate, he focussed a great deal of his time on math and science education and

spearheaded the Glenn Commission report, ‘‘Before It’s Too Late.’’

I am grateful to have Senator Glenn back in the Senate today to

talk about the Commission’s report and priorities for math and

science education and research. He has already made available to

all of us a videotape and report on the Commission work, which I

know our colleagues will value. I will ask the staffs to make sure

that they give those to the Senators.

Then finally, Keith Verner we are pleased to welcome. Dr. Verner is the chief of Developmental Pediatrics and Learning at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine. Besides his extensive experience as a professor, he has authored several publications

related to health education and science research. I am pleased to

have Dr. Verner here today to discuss the importance of both NSF’s

and the Department of Education’s math and science partnerships.

Dr. Colwell, we will start with you.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]

3

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR KENNEDY

Thank You, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Verner, for joining us. We’re especially pleased

to have with us also Senator Glenn, who is a national treasure and leading authority on math and science education, research, and development.

The National Science Foundation has a distinguished history of success and has

made a difference in the lives of millions of Americans. It has funded basic research

leading to the creation of doppler radar, speech recognition software, and even the

World Wide Web browsers many of us rely on today. Its education initiatives of the

late 1980s were the forerunners for the standards-based school reform that is now

embraced throughout Federal, State, and local education programs.

Today, NSF has two key functions: First, supporting high-end research and development in science, math, engineering and technology. And second, promoting cutting-edge math and science education reform and performance at the elementary,

secondary, post-secondary and post-graduate levels. We look forward to hearing

about each of those functions today.

Advancements in biological and physical sciences often depend on each other. Federal research and development funding has grown, especially in the health sciences,

over the last several years, which has been very valuable in many areas. The National Institutes of Health’s budget has doubled over the last 5 years. But, we

should also work to grow support for research and development in theoretical mathematics and the physical sciences—not only because they are valuable in their own

right, but also because they support advancements in the health sciences and other

fields.

In fact, we have an urgent need to begin today to interest young minds in math

and science, and to recruit tomorrow’s mathematicians and engineers. Over the next

10 years, the number of jobs requiring technical skills is projected to grow by 50

percent.

Unfortunately, the number of American students studying math and science at

the college level has been flat over the last decade. High school student performance

on international math and science exams is distressingly low. And at a time that

our Nation is growing more diverse, women and minorities continue to shy away

from the sciences.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses here today, reviewing the submitted

testimony of others, and moving forward with this reauthorization.

We are honored to have such distinguished witnesses today, and look forward to

their proposals to address these challenges as we reauthorize the National Science

Foundation.

OPENING STATEMENT OF RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Ms. COLWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank

you and the Committee for the opportunity to discuss the President’s budget request for the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation’s budget request is $5.036 billion for fis- cal year 2003, $240 million or 5 percent more than the previous fiscal year. For the United States to stay on the leading edge of discovery and innovation, we cannot do less.

My written testimony contains the specific funding levels for our

various initiatives and programs, but the NSF is keenly aware and

deeply appreciative of this Committee’s strong interest in improving the quality of education in this country, so I wanted to briefly

discuss some of the steps that NSF is taking to strengthen our

math and science education.

Everyone agrees that we need to improve our preK–12 education

system. America’s knowledge-based society in the 21st Century

puts a premium on the importance of research, innovation, and

human capital as our principal strengths. Still, at the dawn of the

21st Century we continue to see depressingly familiar news stories

about why Johnny knows little about science and why he lags in

math. Information technology, for example, has revolutionized

America’s businesses, but it also poses new demands. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
4

merce Department projects that 60 percent of the new jobs in the

year 2020 will require skills possessed by only 22 percent of our

workers today. The Labor Department projects that new jobs requiring science, engineering and technical training will increase by

51 percent by 2008.

Only about 5 percent of the 24-year-olds in this country have

earned degrees in the natural sciences or engineering. By that

measure we now trail Japan, Korea and the United Kingdom. A

decade ago we were leading.

We are right to be concerned about a seeming mismatch emerging between the skills that workers possess and the skills that employers demand. How can it be that a Nation that spends more

than $300 billion on public K–12 education invests less than .1 percent of that amount to determine which educational technologies

actually work and how they can be improved?

Well, NSF does not have a magic wand, but we do have an impressive portfolio of research and education programs that are designed to help address these and other challenging problems. One

of the most encouraging highlights of our fiscal year 2003 budget

request is a second installment of a $200 million program for President Bush’s national 5-year, $1 billion math and science partnership program, the MSP, to ensure that no child is left behind. The

goal of the MSP program is to link local schools with colleges and

universities to improve the preK–12 math and science education, to

train teachers, and create innovative ways to reach out to the underserved students and schools.

The NSF and the Department of Education have formed a Tiger

Team which meets approximately twice a month to discuss important programs and activities that support our common goals in

math and science education. Demonstrating the success of our partnership approach, these Tiger Team discussions resulted in the development of an approach to jointly manage the review and award

process for the first math and science partnership competition. The

review panels met very recently to examine the appropriate 290

MSP proposals that had been submitted. The Department of Education staff worked closely with NSF’s staff in the management of

this process and we expect to announce the first set of the MSP

awards later this summer.

Now for MSP to succeed we have to first ensure that genuinely

productive partnerships are established between schools and colleges. A second distinguishing feature of the MSP is that it will not

be an isolated set of local partnerships, but will become part of a

national science, technology, engineering and mathematics education portfolio of interconnected sites so that successful methods

can be shared to benefit all students.

Through the programs like MSP, our education portfolio is evolving to meet the critical needs of our Nation’s future workforce. We

must draw on our full talent pool if our work force is to truly reflect the face of America. We must attract more students, especially

minorities and women, to pursue careers in science, mathematics,

technology and engineering.

In recent years the number of engineers graduating from our

universities has decreased by over 20 percent. Over half the doctoral candidates in math and physical sciences in our Nation’s uniVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
5

versities are from other countries, with an increasing number returning home after completion of their studies.

Competition from other nations continues to increase. U.S. investment in broad-based fundamental research, which takes place

largely in our universities, must not be allowed to slip. President

Bush and his administration have recognized that we need to invest more in scientific and technological research across all of the

scientific disciplines. The President’s science adviser recently testified that the balance in this broad research portfolio recognizes

that advances in one field, such as medicine, are often dependent

on gains in other disciplines. Diversified investments across the full

spectrum maximize our returns, both financial and technical. And

this view was echoed by Harold Varmus, the former NIH director,

when he noted that ‘‘Medical advances may seem like wizardry, but

you pull back the curtain and sitting at the lever is a high-energy

physicist, a combinational chemist or an engineer.’’

The National Science Foundation is uniquely positioned to help

push forward one of the Nation’s highest priorities—improving education for all children. Educational research, the science of education, is a key component. We still do not know how we learn, how

we remember, or how we think, yet I believe there is no field in

which major advances would have more profound effects for human

progress.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to any questions

that the Committee may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Colwell follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RITA R. COLWELL

Chairman Kennedy, Senator Gregg, and Members of the Committee, thank you

for providing this opportunity to discuss the President’s budget request for the National Science Foundation.

America’s present and future strength, prosperity and global pre-eminence depend

directly on fundamental research.

Every year, the Foundation’s optimal use of limited public funds has relied on two

conditions: number one, ensuring that our research and education investments are

aimed—and continuously re-aimed—at the frontiers of understanding.

Number two, certifying that virtually every dollar goes to competitive merit-reviewed, and time-limited awards with clear criteria for success.

Moreover, NSF puts the greatest share of its resources where they will do the

most good: in the Nation’s colleges and universities where, in addition to generating

the truly new ideas that define the future, every dollar invested contributes to developing and training the next generation of researchers and educators.

Moreover, NSF has been proactive in implementing the President’s Management

Agenda, and we welcome—and apply—input from many sources to continuously improve the way we manage programs at NSF.

When these conditions are met, our Nation gets the most intellectual and economic leverage from its research and education investments.

The National Science Foundation is requesting $5.036 billion for FY2003, $240

million, or 5 percent more than the previous fiscal year. For the United States to

stay on the leading edge of discovery and innovation, we cannot do less.

Let me stress that the priority setting process at NSF results from continual consultation with the research community. New programs are added or enhanced only

after seeking the combined expertise and experience of the science and engineering

community, the Director and Deputy, and the National Science Board.

Programs are initiated or enlarged based on considerations of their intellectual

merit, broader impacts of the research, the importance to science and engineering,

balance across fields and disciplines, and synergy with research in other agencies

and nations. NSF coordinates its research with our sister research agencies both informally—by program officers being actively informed of other agencies’ programs—

6

and formally, through interagency agreements that spell out the various agency

roles in research activities.

Partnerships among agencies are proliferating mainly because they offer the best

hope for finding answers to some of the most challenging research problems. These

partnerships are truly changing the face of science. NSF is the lead agency for two

multi-agency administration initiatives in the most promising research fields, information technology and nanotechnology. Knowledge breakthroughs in these two

areas alone will fundamentally change the face of research in research areas across

the board.

I am keenly aware and deeply appreciative of this Committee’s strong interest in

improving the quality of education in this country, so I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss some of the steps NSF is taking to strengthen our math and science

education.

Everyone agrees that we need to improve our preK-12 education system. America’s technology-driven economy demands innovative thinkers to create new industries and fill the ever more demanding jobs these new industries generate.

How can it be, at the dawn of the 21st Century, that we still see news stories

about ‘‘why Johnny can’t read’’ or ‘‘why Johnny can’t count?’’

How can it be that a Nation that spends more than $300 billion on public K-12

education invests less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that amount to determine

‘‘what actually works,’’ and to find ways to improve educational technologies? NSF

does not have a magic wand, but we do have an impressive portfolio of research and

education programs designed to help address these and other challenging problems.

One of the most encouraging highlights of our FY03 budget request is a second

installment of $200 million for President Bush’s national 5-year, $1 billion Math

and Science Partnership Program (MSP) to ensure that ‘‘no child is left behind.’’ The

strategic focus of MSP is to link the Nation’s higher education institutions with

local, regional and State school districts and other partners. MSP calls for a significant commitment by colleges and universities to help improve the quality of science

and mathematics instruction in our schools. Additionally, the program calls for

greater investment in the recruitment and professional development of highly competent science and math teachers. I would like to note that NSF and the Department of Education are working closely together to effectively manage this joint investment in math and science education. Review panels are currently underway for

the first round of MSP proposals, and Department of Education staff is fully involved in this process along with NSF staff.

For MSP to succeed we must first ensure that productive partnerships are established between schools and colleges. A second distinguishing feature of MSP is that

it will not be an isolated set of local partnerships, but will become part of a national

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio of

interconnected sites that will share successful methods so that all students benefit.

MSP seeks to improve student achievement in mathematics and science by all students, at all pre-college levels. NSF doesn’t have all the answers, but through programs like MSP, our education portfolio is evolving to meet the critical needs of our

Nation’s future workforce.

That S&T workforce should also reflect the face of America. We must attract more

of our youngsters, especially minorities and women, to pursue careers in science,

mathematics, technology, and engineering. We must draw upon our full talent pool.

One of the steps NSF is taking to attract more of the Nation’s most promising students to science and engineering is an investment of approximately $37 million in

FY03 to increase annual stipends for graduate fellows to encourage them to pursue

technical careers. Other NSF programs geared toward helping this underrepresented segment of our population can hopefully make a difference in their recruitment, retention, and advancement in technical fields.

The budget also includes funding for six priority areas, including $221 million for

nanotechnology research, $286 million for information technology research, and $60

million as part of a new priority area in mathematical and statistical sciences research that will ultimately advance interdisciplinary science and engineering. $185

million is directed toward NSF’s Learning for the 21st Century Workforce priority

area—including $20 million to fund three to four new multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional Science of Learning Centers to enhance our understanding of how we learn,

how the brain stores information, and how we can best use new information technology to promote learning.

We are also requesting $10 million to seed a new priority area in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences to explore the complex interactions between new

technology and society so that we can better anticipate and prepare for their consequences.

7

The budget requests $79 million for research on biocomplexity in the environment.

This builds upon past investments to study the remarkable and dynamic web of

interrelationships that arise when living things at all levels interact with their environment. Research in two new areas this year—microbial genome sequencing and

ecology of infectious diseases—will help develop strategies to assess and manage the

risks of infectious diseases, invasive species, and biological weapons.

I should add that as part of the Administration’s new multi-agency Climate

Change Research Initiative, we will implement a $15 million research program to

advance understanding in highly focused areas of climate science, to reduce uncertainty and facilitate policy decisions. Our budget also includes $76 million for programs slated to be transferred to NSF from NOAA, EPA, and the USGS.

Although we did not seek these transfers, we take considerable pride in the fact

that of the 26 Federal agencies judged by OMB in five key management areas, only

the National Science Foundation received a green light. NSF is noted for its expertise and success in funding competitive research, and this was certainly a factor in

this recognition .

In large facilities, we will continue support for the next phase of construction of

the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA). New construction projects in the

FY2003 budget include two prototype sites of the National Ecological Observatory

Network (NEON) at a cost of $12 million to analyze data to detect abrupt changes

or long-term trends in the environment. The budget also requests $35 million for

EarthScope to detect and investigate earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and landslides on the North American continent.

The events following September 11 demonstrated our capacity to engage the research community in ways that are immediately responsive to national needs—

ranging from the analysis of a catastrophic structural collapse to the use of robotics

in victim location. We owe this flexibility to a highly trained scientific and engineering workforce capable of selecting the most interesting and challenging problems for

their research. It is this flexibility, enabled by the merit review system that makes

our science and technology enterprise the envy of the world.

The Bush Administration has recognized that we need to invest more in scientific

and technological research—across the board. Other nations are building up their

R&D commitments. U.S. investment in broad-based fundamental research—which

takes place largely in our universities—must not be allowed to slip. I think Harold

Varmus said it best when he said, ‘‘The NIH does a magnificent job, but it does not

hold all the keys to success. The work of several science agencies is required for advances in medical sciences, and the health of some of those agencies is suffering.’’

The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency whose primary mission is to advance science, engineering and mathematics across all disciplines. By

doing so we support national defense, help our country remain internationally competitive, and provide a better standard of living for our citizens. As we work to develop the finest scientists and engineering for the 21st Century, our human resources policy must move beyond simply the supply and demand of personnel and

address the composition of our science and engineering workforce. There is much

room for needed improvement and continued policy considerations.

Mr. Chairman, for those who want to examine the NSF budget in detail, it is fully

laid out on our website. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the

committee may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we move to Senator Glenn, I notice Senator Kit Bond was here earlier and we have been joined by Barbara

Mikulski, who I know was looking forward to the testimony of Dr.

Colwell and I should have asked John Glenn to lead off first on it,

but I note her presence here. If there is anything she wanted to

add about Dr. Colwell at this time?

Senator MIKULSKI. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Dr. Colwell comes as—we greet everyone, our dear

colleague Senator Glenn and, of course, Dr. Verner, but Dr. Colwell

comes to us from the State of Maryland where she has been acknowledged in the University——

The CHAIRMAN. I do not correct Senator Mikulski on any

matters——

Senator MIKULSKI. Why? Do not tell me——

8

The CHAIRMAN. She was born in Massachusetts. But I have

learned, since she is an appropriator, it is much better to let things

go by. There are not many instances where I can—— Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman, you know as an authorizer, it

is not where you start out; it is where you end up.

The CHAIRMAN. That why I am going to keep quiet.

Senator MIKULSKI. Dr. Colwell arrived in Maryland, came to the

University of Maryland and to my colleagues, we know that Dr.

Colwell is really an outstanding scholar in her own right. She is

an award-winning scholar, acknowledged by her peers. She is a talented administrator. Under her stewardship at the National

Science Foundation, she has been a leader, she has been effective,

and I think she brings to us today a framework for the future on

how we can take this great invention of the old century and make

it contemporary, fiscally responsible for the new century. I know

we will look forward to her testimony.

And I am so pleased that I was joined by my brother appropriator, Senator Bond, because, you know, we are deeply committed

to doubling the National Science Foundation’s budget and we look

forward to working with our authorizers for the right policy framework.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bond, we would welcome any comment

that you might make.

Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, if I may impose upon our witnesses, I had a couple of thoughts I wanted to share about the National Science Foundation and I have some other things this afternoon which may preclude my returning, so I am very pleased to

join you and my Chairman on the Appropriations Committee for

NSF.

Ms. Colwell has been to Missouri many times, if that helps.

Ms. COLWELL. My daughter graduated from Wash. U., sir.

Senator BOND. Wash. U.? Okay, so everybody has a claim.

Senator Mikulski and I do have a very special interest in the

NSF and I want to focus on something that Dr. Colwell was talking

about on math and science education. Since we have raised these

issues, we fought for these issues, I am on the Budget Committee

and on Appropriations and we have lots of other things to talk

about, but as Senator Mikulski has said, we have been leading a

bicameral, bipartisan effort to double the NSF budget and we

would like to see the reauthorization bill support this doubling.

We strongly believe that doubling NSF’s funding will not only

support the strong role that NSF plays in basic science research,

but also in the critically important area of education that Dr.

Colwell was discussing earlier.

Now when people think of Education they think of the Department of Education, but not enough people understand the critical

role that NSF plays in supporting math and science education and

developing the Nation’s supply of scientists and engineers. As Dr.

Colwell has said, they are in short supply. We face a real crisis in

this field if we do not improve our production of educated scientists

and engineers.

Despite our efforts on the Appropriations Committee, the Federal

Government just has not provided adequate support to the NSF

and the physical sciences in general. I believe this lack of support

9

for physical science puts our Nation’s capability for scientific innovation at risk and, equally important, as also has been mentioned,

at risk of falling behind other nations. Therefore I would strongly

urge my colleagues on this Committee to join Senator Mikulski and

me.

One other point that I think is vitally important when we talk

about doubling the NSF budget, many medical doctors in Missouri

and throughout the country tell me that despite the tremendous

support we have provided for life sciences in NIH, their research

in the biomedical field will stagnate without adequate Government

support of the physical sciences that NSF supports. Many medical

technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital mammography, genomic mapping, could not have occurred and

cannot improve to the next level of proficiency without NSF-supported work in biology, in physics, chemistry, math, engineering,

computer sciences. Simply put, if we want to see medical advances

we cannot just double the funding of NIH. We must double the

funding of NSF, and NSF is far behind.

Now I think to go back to the education part of it, the high-tech

industry is also concerned about NSF funding because they are

struggling to find qualified home-grown engineers and scientists

and they have to rely more on foreign nationals. Many notable researchers in the high-tech industry have told me that the significant shortage of trained American engineers and scientists have

limited the growth potential of the electronics and software industries and allowed foreign competitors to catch up to U.S. industry

capabilities.

To address the tech talent in this country, NSF provides a wide

array of support to preK–12, undergraduate and graduate level

schools. One new important tool is the Math and Science Partnership program jointly administered with DOE. Under this program,

NSF is encouraging partnerships with local schools, higher education, and other organizations to improve student outcomes. I

hope we can address this in this bill.

The last area I want to mention is math and science education

at the undergraduate level. As noted, we are falling behind in the

number of students receiving degrees despite the growth in our

population and the increase in undergraduate enrollment. In other

countries we see the numbers going up and we are having to depend too much on foreign students for the scientists and engineers

we need. We love having the resources coming in from other countries, but we cannot depend upon others solely to educate our scientists and engineers.

Demand for engineers and computer scientists is expected to

grow by more than 50 percent by 2008 and the high-tech industry

is justifiably concerned that it will become increasingly difficult to

fill this demand and remain competitive.

In response to this problem my Senator colleagues, Senators

Lieberman, Frist, Mikulski and Domenici, and I introduced S.

1549, the Tech Talent Act, to improve undergraduate education in

math, science, engineering and technology. In our VA–HUD Independent Agencies Act for this year we jump-started it with $5 million. Sometimes when the authorizers fall behind, we kind of give

them a little help in the appropriations process. NSF has already

10

received 177 applications requesting some $60 million. We have

many co-sponsors on the Tech Talent Act. I hope my colleagues will

support this in the reauthorization bill.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Commerce Committee in developing a strong bipartisan NSF reauthorization. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Bond, for a very important statement. If you had listened to Eliza Sunni, who came here for the

leadership in terms of the National Institutes of Health, he spoke

very importantly about the same point that you made about the

importance of tying in the basic research that is done in the life

sciences with the other kinds of research in the more technical

fields.

Senator BOND. I told him my favorable vote on confirmation——

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have done it again. But in all seriousness, I think all of us are impressed by both your statement and

the statement of Senator Mikulski about giving additional resources and focus to what is a real national challenge.

Senator Glenn, welcome. We missed you very much and we admire your long-time career of public service in the interest of the

country, as one who is at the cutting edge of research and exploration in the atmosphere, a distinguished record here as a Member

of the Senate and now awakening the country to the importance of

ensuring that the young people and our Nation is going to be well

equipped to deal with the challenges of this century and beyond.

So we are very grateful for your presence and very grateful for your

continued service to the Nation.

OPENING STATEMENT OF JOHN GLENN, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE JOHN GLENN INSTITUTE FOR

PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY

Mr. GLENN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members.

It is an honor to be asked to come back and to testify. I have a

more lengthy statement that I would like to submit for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine.

Mr GLENN. It has a lot more detail in it.

I wanted to acknowledge, too, Linda Rosen, who came with me

today, who did a lot of work on this. She formerly was National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics as their executive director, was

in the Department of Education with Secretary Riley as his principal adviser on math and science matters, and more recently has

been senior vice president for education in the National Alliance of

Business, and was a teacher of math before that in the public

school system.

So I would like to submit that statement from and make some

verbal remarks here and then answer any questions.

We all talk about education, but I would like to emphasize today

a particular aspect of it, not just education in general, but a specific that I feel is critical that we must deal with, and it has already been addressed here to some extent. Math and science education and particularly in our K–12 system, I think there is a

major question, a big question about whether it is adequate to provide U.S. leadership in the future world, and that is not overstated.

If we think about all the things that we have—the products, autoVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
11

mobiles, air conditioners, communications, houses, microphones,

lights, everything else—they all have some basis in math and

science.

Whether you are talking about manufacturing or agriculture,

food, transport, or our standard of living, they are all based in

what we do in math and science. We have been ahead of the rest

of the world because our math and science excellence and the research that came from that in just a short time frame of international history of only a little over 200 years—it has been good

enough in the past, yes, but it is not necessarily good enough for

the future.

A couple of things have happened. One, it hasn’t been too many

years since globalization was just a big word, a theory for the future perhaps, but now it is real. The second area is that other nations are emphasizing math and science more than we are in their

school systems.

Now globalization, if you think about it in the morning, you turn

on your TV set and you see the Wall Street quotes on stocks, closely followed by the Hang Seng Index, the Nikkei Average, the

Frankfurt quotes, quotes of the eurodollar, right on around the

world, indicating that tens upon tens of billions of dollars are floating around the world all the time looking for places to go where

there is good research, where there is entrepreneurship and where

there are trained workers, and that is what the other nations are

now out-doing in preparing their people for that kind of a world in

math and science in particular.

It is not that our kids are getting dumber; they are not going

down in their IQ. It is just that other nations are beginning to recognize what the goose was that laid the golden egg for the United

States and they are emphasizing their science, particularly math

and science, and they are beginning to out-do the United States of

America, of all things.

Now this is what concerned Secretary Riley in the last administration. He had seen the Third International Math and Science

Study and the National Assessment of Education Progress, NAEP.

The TIM Study, as the first was called, was a study done of K–12

education with 41 nations around the world. What it basically

found was that our kids, up to about the fourth grade, do fine. We

are in the top few nations in the world in math and science up

through about the fourth grade. Then things start deteriorating

and by the time our kids get out of high school, we are near last

in comparison with these 41 nations around the world.

Now when we looked into this, Secretary Riley asked me to chair

the National Commission on Math and Science Teaching for the

21st Century, which I did. We had a very notable group we put together for that—educators, legislators, some Members of this Committee; the Chairman was a Member of the Commission. We had

leading educators from all over the country come in, particularly in

this area of math and science.

Now what we found out was that about one-fourth of our math

teachers in this country never had any training in teaching math.

They are teaching out of field. They never had any training as either a major or a minor when they were in college. Twenty percent

of our science teachers were the same. Thirty percent of both math

12

and science teachers, on the average, leave the profession within 3

years, and 50 percent are gone within 5 years. Now that is a boiling turnover that we cannot tolerate for the long term.

There are also some differences in the ways of teaching that we

saw when Jim Stigler from San Diego, who had done international

studies of teaching methods, showed us some of the different things

that are used in Japan to teach and how their methods of teaching

vary from ours, and also in Germany. Where our kids are taught

more in rote and memorization, the Japanese model for their kids

is that they teach more problem-solving, thinking about it, are

given a problem and then are asked to solve it. Then they get back

to trying to determine within the class how they got to their final

solutions on this. It is a different approach to education entirely.

Now if we doubt that this is an emergency, the emergency is already here and the Congress itself here has witnessed that because

back a number of years when I was still in the Senate here, as a

matter of fact, we passed legislation which permitted an immigration waiver of 115,000 people per year over a 3-year period because

industry and business was coming in telling us we just cannot get

our own people into these high-tech jobs; we do not have the people

to fill the jobs.

So we passed that legislation and that did not even solve it. So

about 2 years ago the Congress passed again an immigration waiver of 195,000 per year for 3 years of highly technically trained people. As I say, this was done mainly at the request of business and

industry and the computer people, who could not get people to fill

those good jobs.

Now how do we correct this? In our system, if we can say that

it is a system at all, it is very difficult. All of our competitive nations around the world, the major ones, have a national education

system through K–12. In this country we do not have an education

system as such. What we have are a little over 14,700 independent

school boards all getting elected independently and doing their own

thing. So we do not have a system and the Federal impact on this,

I think, is somewhere around 7 percent of the funding and a lot

of that goes to school food programs and lunch programs and

things like that.

So it is very difficult. We cannot do like Britain did a few years

ago and say we have to upgrade our math and science, so they call

about five meetings around the country, they change their curriculum, it goes into effect next fall. We cannot do that here because

we are operating with 14,700 school boards, each one doing their

own thing, and I might add too many of them getting elected by

promising not to raise your taxes as a basis for why they are elected.

So we do not have an education system that we can just plug in

and say we are going to change the system and make it more effective.

So what can we do? What our study showed, we approached this

in three different areas. We wanted to improve the present teacher

force, the ones that are out there right now. Second, we wanted to

have greater numbers of teachers in preparation. We wanted to recruit teachers. Then number three, make that work environment

one in which we could make teaching attractive and make it as fiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
13

nancially rewarding as the competition is, the competition being

business and industry that hires away too many of our best teachers. So that is something we tried to address with this report.

The report, which we have given to each Member of the Committee—I hope the staff, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, will take

this to your Senator and make sure that they have a chance to see

it. Michael Eisner at Disney also volunteered their efforts to put

this on tape, videotape, so we gave each one of you a copy of that,

also.

To make sure this got to the people that we felt could make the

biggest change in the shortest time period, we mailed this to every

school board member and superintendent in America, and that was

a big job and that was our objective. We think that we actually got

about maybe 85 percent. So this report has gone out, so the school

board members across the country should have seen this. We hope

they take it to heart and do something about it.

Under each one of these three titles, the three goals that we had,

we have a number of things that could be done under each one of

these and they are listed in that report. We will not have time here

today to go through all of these things separately, but under the

improvements that can be done right now, in place, are such things

as a needs assessment first, having summer institutes, inquiry

groups, leadership training, Internet portal access, a coordinating

council for math and science teaching, and a rewards program.

Now under the others, we had, number two——

The CHAIRMAN. John, we have about 5 minutes left on this vote.

Senator Mikulski will be back in a couple of minutes. She voted

early. So she will continue and I will be back in about 6 or 7 minutes for the questions.

Mr. GLENN. Good.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess just for 2 or 3 minutes.

[Recess.]

Senator MIKULSKI [presiding]. The hearing will reconvene. And

while Senator Kennedy is voting, I am going to go to some of my

own questions. I also ask unanimous consent that my own statement go into the record because we know that the hearing has

been interrupted, but we have read the testimony of both Senator

Glenn and, of course, Dr. Verner.

[The prepared statement of Senator Mikulski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKULSKI

Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Doubling NSF’s Budget: Two years ago, Senator Bond and I started the call to

double NSF funding over five years. Unfortunately, budget constraints prevented us

from reaching that goal.

But now we have an opportunity to take a major step forward. By authorizing

a doubling of NSF funding, we will be sending a powerful message to OMB. If we

can double NIH, we can double NSF.

The only way we can double NSF is through cooperation between the Administration and Congress. It is unfortunate that OMB provided NSF with a just a 3 percent

increase for this year. 3 percent increases are just not good enough.

Over the past 10 years, we have had essentially a flat Federal R&D budget. We

cannot continue on this path.

Why double NSF? Because of the double value we get for our investment.

Double Value: First, we get cutting edge research in science, unlocking the mysteries of our universe.

14

Second, we get new technologies that will create new jobs and new markets for

our economy.

The future of our economy in science and technology rests on three pillars: Information technology, Biotechnology and, Nanotechnology.

It is critical that we increase funding for these interdisciplinary programs as well

as traditional basic scientific research.

Over the past several years, funding for the life sciences has far outstripped funding for the physical sciences. Doubling NSF will help correct this imbalance and increase funding for the core physical sciences.

Over the past 10 years, research in the life sciences has grown from 41 to 47 percent of total Federal research funding, while at the same time, the combined share

of physical sciences and engineering in Federal research dropped from 37 to 29 percent.

Education: The only was we can reach our national goals in these disciplines, is

if we have a growing corps of math and science students. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that during this decade, hitech occupations will grow by 47 percent,

compared to 15 percent for the labor force as a whole.

Improving the quality of math and science education is critical. Each year, the

VA/HUD Subcommittee increases funding for math and science education. But we

also need to look at new approaches.

That is why I co-sponsored the Tech Talent legislation last year, along with Senator Lieberman, and included $5 million in the VA/HUD bill.

The Tech Talent bill seeks to improve the quality of undergraduate science education through innovative undergraduate programs. We need to increase graduate

student stipends to keep attracting more graduate students to research.

Last year, I increased graduate stipends from $18,000 per year to $21,500 per

year. But, the real crisis is found at the middle school and high school level, we

need to attract more teachers in math and science.

U.S. high school students taking physics lag behind students in Norway, Sweden,

Russia, Denmark, Slovenia, Germany, Australia and seven other countries.

According to the Glenn Commission, the nation will need 240,000 middle and high

school mathematics and science teachers in the next decade.

A survey of urban school districts, by the Council of the Great City Schools indicated that up to 95 percent of our urban school districts had an immediate demand

for high school science and mathematics teachers.

The fact is that this country’s future competitiveness rests on our ability to develop a U.S. work force that has the skills necessary to meet the increased competition coming from abroad.

Solving the problem of producing more high-quality, homegrown scientists and engineers—and a well educated workforce—depends upon solving the math and

science education problems we have at the elementary and secondary levels of our

school system.

Conclusion: We have a big challenge ahead of us as we enter the new millennium.

The proposal we have on the table is one that would double the National Science

Foundation. That is a goal I have been working towards for the past several years

and together with Senator Bond, this Committee and the rest of my colleagues in

the Senate, I hope we can make it a reality.

I would like to go right to my questions related to Dr. Colwell.

Ms. Colwell, as you have heard Senator Bond and I say, we

would like to double the funding of the National Science Foundation. This is not merely rhetoric but, as you know, we have been

working on a bipartisan basis to double the funding of the National

Institutes of Health. That national effort has served the Nation

well and we believe the NIH. Yet, at the same time, we are deeply

concerned that the focus on physics, chemistry, the basic building

blocks of science have been underfunded and often overlooked. This

also is true of very important research that is needed, as well as

developing the next generation of scientists.

So having said that, could you share with us, as we do the march

to double the funding for the foundation, what would NSF do that

it cannot do now and what do you think should be the most important priorities for doubling? I will just let you, rather than me have

15

a long question, let me have a short question and you have a long

answer.

Ms. COLWELL. Thank you, Senator. Whether the NSF budget is

doubled or tripled or even stays the same, our priorities are going

to match the Federal Government’s three overarching priorities;

namely, defeating global terrorism abroad, protecting us at home,

and strengthening our economy. Now this goes across all the scientific disciplines. Let me just show you how the NSF is making

unique contributions to each of these priorities and that is where

we would like to see strength.

That is in basic research, from blue sky to blueprint, it’s always

going to be the most important to protect our armed forces. If you

trace any useful item in our arsenal back to its origins, you will

discover that the basic research in physics, chemistry and

materials—— Senator MIKULSKI. Doctor, remember I have 5 minutes.

Ms. COLWELL. Yes, I do, Senator. Physics, chemistry and material science are very important. They are a crucial step. We also

have been supporting a dozen research areas that impact on defense, like intelligence-gathering and secure systems. This is——

Senator MIKULSKI. You do intelligence-gathering at the National

Science Foundation?

Ms. COLWELL. Not intelligence-gathering, but the capacity

through information technology, cybersecurity, to enable intelligence-gathering, Senator, I think is really critical.

Also, I think that we must invest in education K–12, education

in our undergraduate schools, education at the graduate level, for

the scientists and engineers that we need for the workforce. We

have to, I think, address the major directions of nanotechnology,

the social and behavioral sciences. We have an initiative request in

this budget which is critical, and that is understanding risk, risk

assessment, understanding the capacity for the computer-human

interface, the directions that we—— Senator MIKULSKI. Doctor, I appreciate that, but I was looking

for a few more practical things. For example, right now the average

grant at NSF is $125,000. Is there a backlog of really solid-sounding research to be funded?

Second, what we are concerned about in the area of education is

that foreign students comprise 40 percent of all Ph.Ds in science

and engineering. This is not a xenophobic comment on my part.

Nor do I have disdain about that. But in 1987 it was 35 percent.

Is it that we are not recruiting? Is it that also our grants are spartan and skimpy? You really leaned on me last year to raise the stipend.

Could we have some practical things, in addition to those national priorities that you, the president, and OMB agree upon?

Ms. COLWELL. Senator, thank you for focussing me. You are absolutely right. In fact, I do have some charts of grants that we have

not been able to fund that are rated very good or excellent and not

able to fund because of insufficient availability of funding.

We also have worked extremely hard to raise graduate student

stipends because we know from the studies that we have done that

especially minority students, it sometimes takes 7 years to get to

a bachelor’s degree because they have to work; their families are

16

unable to support them. They end up with a very hefty debt, so

they are not able to go into graduate school. So we need to provide

a graduate stipend that is appropriate.

And we have just completed a very interesting study of grant

size and duration in which it shows quite clearly that we need to

have grants of approximately between $200,000 to $300,000 per

year, not $113,000 per year and up to 5 years and not 3 years, as

is the present case, for one major reason. We did a survey of about

6,000 people and got a 92 percent return and almost to a person

they said that if they had the funds they would invest them in people—in graduate students, in post-docs, and that is exactly what

we need in science and engineering for today and for the future.

Senator MIKULSKI. I thought you competed for a grant to do research; you did not compete for a grant to make an investment.

Have I missed something?

Ms. COLWELL. No, you have not missed—what I am telling you

is that in order to better carry out the research, if the additional

funds were available they would hire graduate students and postdocs to help them achieve their objectives and they would get more

results faster and they would have the ability to explore ideas that

they cannot explore now.

Senator MIKULSKI. I appreciate that.

I am going to turn to my colleague Senator Jeffords, one of the

really leading spokesmen here in terms of public education, who I

know will go to Senator Glenn and Dr. Verner.

But how many—last two practical questions—about how many

grant requests do you get a year and how many of those can you

fund at the spartan level of $125,000?

Ms. COLWELL. We are now receiving 32,000. We got up until last

year about 30,000. It is up to about 32,000 per year and we are

able to fund 9,000. We have about $2.5 billion of grants that are

rated very good or excellent that we cannot fund.

Senator MIKULSKI. Even though you would like to double the size

of the grant because it actually gives us better research, we also

need to help the farm team for graduate students, which gives us

more value for the dollar. The people playing single-A ball—I’m an

Orioles fan, so bear with me—then go on to really major league research. Am I correct?

Ms. COLWELL. Yes, you are, Senator.

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, thank you. There are so many other

questions, but I am going to turn to my dear and esteemed colleague who has really helped keep the focus on public education in

the Senate the way it needed to be.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you very much for those very kind

words.

Senator Glenn, you were not finished with your testimony, I believe.

Senator MIKULSKI. Oh, I am sorry.

Mr. GLENN. Well, I was very close to it.

Senator MIKULSKI. I thought you all had kept on talking. We

would. We would talk to an empty room. John, you are disappointing me. I thought you had even talked to an empty room. I apologize.

17

Mr. GLENN. I was within a couple of minutes of winding down.

I was just going to give some examples to wind up with on my remarks about—this will just take a couple of minutes here—examples of the need for this. You know, we have depended pretty much

on our productivity going up and yet if we have a productivity increase of about 2.6 percent per year, we would double our standard

of living every 25 years and that is a good objective. We do not do

that without math and science.

This is sort of a potpourri here, jumping around a little bit. The

Department of Labor says we will have 20 million new high-tech

jobs by 2008. And just in health sciences and computers we have

5.6 million new jobs by 2008. They say that in 1950, 80 percent of

the jobs in the country were classified as unskilled, and now in the

year 2000, 85 percent of the jobs are classified as skilled. You do

not address that without math and science.

Training Magazine estimates that business and industry spent $62.5 billion to train the people they needed in 1999. A member of

our committee at the National Commission that I headed, one of

our commission members was Craig Barrett, who is the head of

Intel and I think everyone probably knows that Intel is the biggest

computer chip manufacturer in the world. I think they make about

80 percent of them. They spend $160 million a year training their

people on things that he said about two-thirds of which is in areas

that they should have had coming out of high school. $160 million

a year, one company. No wonder they all wanted us to give waivers

to let foreigners come in here, immigration waivers so that they

could be put into these high-tech jobs.

One of the Midwest think-tanks says the skills required for 60

percent of all new jobs in the 21st Century are possessed now by

only 20 percent of the current workforce.

And some of the figures here, Department of Education figures,

1995 to 1996, nonresident aliens in engineering, math and info

sciences, 35 percent of the bachelor’s degrees, 44 percent of the

master’s degrees. They are out-competing Americans and then

going back home, going to be competitive with us there.

Examples of what is happening are in Ireland. We do not think

of Ireland as being a hub of great scientific activity, yet right now

60 percent of all the business application software sold in Europe

comes out of Ireland because they have a good background in

science and math.

So anyway, those are just some summary remarks here, but just

one thing that Dr. Colwell just mentioned in passing here was the

military aspect of this thing. If we are really serious about the war

that is going to be going on for the next 15 or 20 years and we need

whatever we need—we need nuclear deterrence, submarines, B–2

bombers, missiles, vaccinations, night vision, GPS, satellite communications, encryption, you name it right on down the lot—all based

in math and science. If we get behind in those areas to any nation

in the world or any group that wishes us ill in the world, we are

just playing dangerous games with our future.

So I am very much in favor of doubling, tripling, or whatever you

can get for NSF. I think it is needed. I hear that one of the previous witnesses said they would triple NSF. If I had my way I

would say five times NSF. I will go him two better.

18

I just think it is that important that we get this back on track

again and the difficulty is we do not have an education system

where you plug this in and say here is what is going to happen.

To repeat what I said a while ago, over 14,700 independent school

boards in this country doing their own thing, some of them excited

about math, some of them thinking it is a waste of time. If it was

good enough for me, it is good enough for my grandkids; that is

their attitude and it is just too bad because if we could excite the

school boards of this country to do something about it, maybe we

would get a lot faster action, but we do not have that kind of a

thing.

I know when I was in the Senate if I had made a speech and

said we should go to a national education system, I would have

been run down the east steps of the Capitol before I could have gotten the words out, but here we have all these school boards that

take great pride in their local ability, their local pride in local control, but they are not measuring up in local responsibility to see

this danger for the future and do something about it. So thank you

very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you and you are right-on. I will be

back to you.

Dr. Verner, please proceed.

OPENING STATEMENT OF KEITH VERNER, CHIEF OF DEVELOPMENTAL PEDIATRICS AND LEARNING, PENNSYLVANIA

STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

Mr. VERNER. Thank you very much. I guess before I start I would

just like to say to Senator Glenn that I notice the same problem

with school boards so I actually ran and got elected to be on one.

Mr. GLENN. Good for you.

Mr. VERNER. I am pleased to be here to discuss with you really

the crucial challenge of improving basic science education. I do not

need to cite how poorly our students have done on international

tests in math and science because that has already come up here

today, and I do not think I have to accentuate how important it is

for our students to be able to think scientifically in an increasingly

technological economy and society. So basically I am not here to

point out the problem, but to suggest ways in which I believe that

the scientific community can help address this problem.

As a scientist who is dedicated to the mission of improving basic

science education what I will do is just begin by describing a couple

of our programs at the Penn State College of Medicine as a means

of showing you an example of how the scientific community can address this problem.

Now both educational experience and cognitive science suggest

that science is best taught with a hands-on approach that blends

the cognitive appeal of experimental activity with comprehensive,

standards-based science instruction. But the ability to deliver

meaningful hands-on science while making sure that there are no

gaps in the conceptual basis of the curriculum requires that the

curriculum directors have a very deep and comprehensive understanding of science and this is not an easy task.

I therefore suggest that this challenge is best approached

through collaborations, direct collaborations between practicing scientists and basic educators. What better way to interweave deep

content expertise with practical classroom experience?

This was essentially the vision that guided us to employ teams

of scientists and public school educators at the College of Medicine

to create what we ended up calling the LabLion Program for elementary school science. Its features include a dual emphasis: first,

on promoting interest in science and conveying knowledge, and also

in developing concise, complete and grade-appropriate inquirybased lesson plans. This program is currently employed in many

schools across Pennsylvania and, in fact, there are over 25,000

Pennsylvania elementary school children that are in this program

at this time. This is just an example of the types of programs that

can be derived from these interactions between scientists and educators.

For science teachers, thinking in terms of scientific concepts and

principles that, in the end, give meaning and context to scientific

facts and formula is essential. And scientists can help in this regard by organizing content-rich educational experiences for teachers.

41

To this end, as another example, we have designed and implemented the Governor’s Institute for Life Science Educators in

Pennsylvania over the past several summers. The Life Science Institute is an intensive in-residence program at the College of Medicine for 100 teachers per summer, and summer is a wonderful time

at a medical school to bring in teachers like this, because we have

the student housing available to us. Mornings are spent in activitybased group lessons that begin on Monday morning right after

breakfast with the dissection of a human cadaver and gradually become more molecular as the week progresses, with strong integration of biochemistry and biophysics. Afternoon and evening sessions

are devoted to grade level-specific scientific content and lesson

plans, as well as different approaches to teaching strategies.

Now such professional development programs, I believe, are a direct and very important way that the scientific community can help

improve basic science education. Based on analysis of student

NAPE scores and teacher professional development programs,

Wenglinsky concluded, and I quote: ‘‘In science, students whose

teachers have received professional development in laboratory

skills outperform their peers by more than 40 percent of a grade

level.’’ That is very important.

Now Title II, Part B of No Child Left Behind gives guidance and

funding for preparing science teachers to meet this challenge of improving student performance. It is also, I must say, entirely consistent with what we have learned over the years in our K–12

science and health outreach efforts. Perhaps the most important,

No Child Left Behind is very results-based. For the evaluation of

professional development programs, for example, it prescribes that

States measure the effectiveness of its professional development

programs through increases in teacher subject mastery and student

academic gains, and this is very important.

I believe that this new law provides great promise for improving

science and further, I believe that the National Science Foundation

can and must play a major role in implementing these desperately

needed changes.

The National Science Foundation is an ideal champion for K–12

science education because of its broad scientific expertise, and we

have just talked about NIH. With all of the quality research it

does, it very much leans toward the life sciences and yet we also

know the very important contribution that physical sciences and

mathematics make to fields like medicine itself.

So the NSF is in an ideal position to take a leadership role in

this. Over the years NSF supported important research and it has

very much helped in maintaining America’s leadership in the state

that it is and it has demonstrated a growing dedication to improving basic science education.

I believe that the recent involvement of the NSF in collaboration

with the Department of Education specifically on the Math and

Science Partnership Program offers, in my opinion, one of the

greatest steps forward in this area in a decade or more. The NSF

program directly addresses some of the best parts of the Title II of

the No Child Left Behind Act and provides funding to make meaningful impacts. The program inspires interactions between university science departments—and I think that is important—science

42

departments and basic science educators. It mandates approaches

to education that are based on research and verifiable analysis of

student performance. Importantly, it values teacher professional

development and it puts the scientific community in a much more

proactive position.

Therefore, as a scientist and as a strong supporter for basic

science education reform, I emphatically recommend doubling, tripling the program for the NSF.

In my written report I have some specific recommendations that

I would like to submit. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEITH VERNER

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here to discuss

with you the crucial challenge of improving basic science education. I will not cite

references pointing out poor U.S. student performance in international tests in math

and science or the importance of being able to think ‘‘scientifically’’ in an increasingly technological economy and society. It is clear from recent legislation, from the

involvement of the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation,

and from this very hearing today, that we as a Nation are adequately aware of the

urgent need to improve science education. Therefore, I am here today not to point

out the problem, but to suggest ways in which the scientific community must help

to solve it. I will begin by describing two of our science education outreach programs

as examples.

ROLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION

Both educational experience and cognitive science tell us that science is best

taught with a ‘‘hands-on’’ approach that blends the cognitive appeal of experiential

activity with comprehensive, standards-based science instruction. But the ability to

enable meaningful hands-on science while making sure there are no gaps in the curriculum requires that the curriculum developers themselves have a deep and comprehensive understanding of science (Verner, K., 2002). I suggest that this challenge

is best approached through collaborations between practicing scientists and basic

educators—What better way to interweave deep content expertise and real-life classroom practice? This was the vision that guided us to employ teams of scientists and

public school educators at the College of Medicine at Penn State University, over

the past several years, to create the LabLion elementary school science program. Its

features include a dual emphasis on promoting interest in science and conveying

knowledge; concise, complete, and grade appropriate inquiry-based lesson plans

(Ruiz-Primo, M.A., et al, 2002; Wenglinsky, H., 2000); readily available supplies;

very low maintenance costs following installation (Levitt, K., 2001); and a strong

professional development component (van Driel, J. H., et al, 2001; Haney, J. J., et

al, 1996; Levitt, K., 2000; Monk, D. H., 1994) among others. This program is currently employed in many schools across Pennsylvania, reaching more than 25,000

elementary school students, and we continually work with the educational community to improve it. Such blends of theory and classroom activity are needed for every

level and sub-discipline of science education.

For science teachers, thinking in terms of scientific concepts and principles that

give meaning and context to scientific facts and formulae, is essential. Helping students to build scientific concepts requires an understanding of the relationships

among their components. Teachers must see these relationships and understand the

logic and organization of the relationships in order to teach the concepts to their

students (National Academy of Sciences, 1999). Scientists can help by organizing

content-rich educational experiences for teachers. To this end, we designed and implemented the Governor’s Institute for Life Science Educators over the past several

summers for K-12 teachers. The Life Science Institute is an intensive in-residence

program at the College of Medicine for 100 teachers per summer. Mornings are

spent in activity-based, scientific content-rich group lessons that begin on Monday

morning with the dissection of a human cadaver and gradually become more molecular as the week progresses, with strong integration of biochemistry and biophysics

(Appendix A). Afternoon and evening sessions are devoted to grade-level specific scientific content and lesson plans, as well as effective teaching strategies.

43

Such professional development programs are a direct and very important way for

the scientific community to help improve basic science education. Based on an analysis of student NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) scores and

teacher professional development programs, Wenglinsky concluded, ‘‘In science, students whose teachers have received professional development in laboratory skills

outperform their peers by more than 40% of a grade level.’’ (Wenglinsky, H., 2000).

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Title II, Part B, Section 2002 of the No Child Left Behind Act gives guidance (and

funding) for preparing science teachers to meet the challenge of improving student

performance in science and is entirely consistent with what we have learned over

the years in our K-12 science and health education outreach efforts. Perhaps most

important, No Child Left Behind is results-based. For the evaluation of professional

development programs, for example, it prescribes (section 2113 (c) (7)) that states

measure the effectiveness of professional development programs through increases

in teacher subject mastery and student academic gains.

I believe that this new law provides great promise for improving science education. Further, I believe that the National Science Foundation can and should play

a major role in implementing this desperately needed change.

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The NSF is an ideal champion for K-12 science education because of its broad

base of scientific expertise in a variety of disciplines, from molecular biology to

oceanography and space exploration. Over the years NSF has supported important

research that has been crucial to maintaining America’s scientific leadership and

demonstrated its growing dedication to improving basic science education.

The recent involvement of the NSF, in collaboration with the Department of Education, in the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program, offers the single most

encouraging development in a decade. The MSP program directly addresses the best

ideas put forth in Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act and provides funding

to begin making a meaningful impact. The MSP program inspires interactions between university science departments and basic science educators. It mandates approaches to science education that are based on research and verifiable analysis of

student performance. It values teacher professional development and puts the scientific community in a more direct and proactive position. As a scientist and a

strong supporter of basic science education reform, I most emphatically recommend

developing the MSP program further.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

Schools should offer hands-on, inquiry-based science curricula at all levels. These

curricula should cover a range of ‘‘concepts’’ providing context for factual knowledge

that is essential for the scientific literacy American citizens need.

Teachers should train students, from elementary school on, to develop a conceptual framework of scientific principles. Each new concept should be linked to previous concepts within the framework so that its inclusion is logical and relevant to

preexisting student knowledge.

Teacher preparation and professional development are key. Without adequate scientific experience and a scientific factual knowledge base, teachers are left to rely

on science textbooks and have difficulty facilitating the building of conceptual

frameworks by their students.

The scientific community can and should have a significant impact on improving

K-12 science education. This involvement is now mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. The scientific community should be proactive, and its contributions may

include: Developing K-12 science curricula with basic science educators; Providing

‘‘scientific’’ experiences for teachers at university laboratories so that they can develop a feel for scientific thinking; Developing summer institutes on university and

medical school campuses to immerse basic science educators in the latest trends in

scientific thinking; Collaborating with experienced, practicing educators to translate

primary scientific research results from disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience

and functional neuroimaging into innovative methodologies of classroom practice

(Verner, K., 2001); Directing the scientific training of pre-service teachers in schools

and colleges of education to ensure that their training has a direct grounding in

science; Integrating directly into the system of basic science education, in both instructional and administrative capacities, and supporting alternative teacher and

administrative certification programs that facilitate such career transitions; and establishing deep intellectual collaborations with basic educators built upon mutual

44

respect and guided by a shared commitment to improving student performance in,

and enjoyment of, science.

The CHAIRMAN. That is fine. Thank you and I thank all of you

very much.

I know that we had some response to Senator Mikulski on how

we deal with the future with an expanded NSF budget and I know

Senator Glenn talked a little bit about why this is important in

terms of national security and national defense. I might try to come

back to that, about how the role and importance of education and

our defense and national security, which I think is enormously important. I do not know if you have said everything, John, that you

wanted to say on that, but I will look forward to reading it in the

record.

Information technology, Dr. Colwell. One of the areas that I

think we have a great need is using IT in terms of getting a handle

on the costs in terms of health care. Five years ago, it cost $23 for

a piece of paper to be filed in terms of the Mass General Hospital

and Fidelity, and today Fidelity is 3 cents and going down to less

than a third of a cent, and Mass General has gone up to $25.

Health and defense are the two areas where IT has not really

been used and used effectively. I am wondering if you could give

us any sort of ideas about how we could follow up on that, how it

could be used more effectively in terms of the control on health

care.

First of all, I think you do a great deal more in terms of quality

of care because you would be able to monitor various kinds of outcomes. You would do better in terms of dealing with the problems

of fraud in the health care area. In an industry that is $1,400 billion and spends close to $400 billion on administrative, I cannot believe you could not save a couple of hundred billion dollars.

Ms. COLWELL. There are a number of areas. One I would emphasize is cybersecurity, the ability to protect patient records and to

be able to keep secure the information that is put into the database. That is one aspect.

Another is manipulating very large databases. We are doing a lot

of research and investing in the capacity to handle huge——

The CHAIRMAN. Just before, on cyber issues and cybersecurity, of

course, defense is spending a good deal of funds on that.

Ms. COLWELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And I am just trying to think as we look at it

say, for example, in health, you have the cybersecurity from defense. How do we benefit from that research? How do we benefit

from your research? How do we sort of begin to bring some of this

into being attractive to the private sector to be able to develop systems which would be able to do this?

Ms. COLWELL. Actually, the National Science Foundation and

DARPA, the research projects agency, and the intelligence agencies

have been collaborating especially since September 11, but we had

already introduced a major program September 11 on cybersecurity

because it is very important for industry, as well as the health care

industry, so to speak.

It is a theme that goes through the entire information technology

world. I am told that we can expect next year a hacker break or

virus every 10 minutes in our systems. That means that we have

45

got to find ways now to be able to protect our databases, our information transfer systems, and we have to do it in a way that provides us with the security that we need domestically, as well as for

defense.

You asked about cost-cutting. Let me just give an example of

DNA sequencing. It used to cost about a dollar a base pair and it

is down to pennies and that is because we are able to do the kind

of analysis of the huge volumes of data in a very much shorter period of time. What took us a month to calculate we can now do in

hours or a day. That alone is a major cost-effective approach to

take and this depends on our being able to develop software and

we are committed to investment in IT software for the next 2 years

of the 5-year initiative and probably beyond because we have to

sort of keep ahead constantly.

That is one of the frustrating things about science. We scientists

always tell you that here is the answer, but we still have to do

more research, but that is the dynamics of being human beings and

thinking beings.

The CHAIRMAN. Could you talk a little bit about the

nanotechnology? I asked two or three people about it who did not

know and then I asked my son and he knew. At least he started

off with a description that he’d been learning about. I would be

very interested in what you are doing and how you see the technology.

Ms. COLWELL. Let me explain it as a microbiologist, if you will.

A bacterium is about 1/25, 400th of an inch and a typical bacterium

has a little whip-like appendage that propels it through an aqueous

medium and that is driven by a tiny motor within the cell, which

is probably a hundredth the size of the cell. So you are beginning

to get the dimension of where we are working. We now have the

capacity to make electromechanical motors about the size of a red

blood cell, which means that we now can actually implant a motor

on the wall of an artery or a vessel that will allow us to monitor

blood pressure, perhaps even to monitor iron concentration if you

tend to be anemic, on a continuous basis.

And we are able to build materials from the atom on up so we

can custom develop materials now in a way we never could before—stronger metals, stronger materials.

So we have an entirely exciting future ahead at the nano scale.

As Richard Fineman, a very famous scientist, physicist once said,

‘‘At the very, very small level you can do very great things.’’ I am

paraphrasing him.

So I think that it portends even greater wealth accretion, accumulation and development and job creation than information technology, and we already know what that has done for us in terms

of being able to do the kinds of things we never could do before.

With making things smaller and more effective and working from

the atomic level up, we are able to, I think, create in a fantastic

way in the future.

So that is what we are working on and that is what we are investing in and we have in the budget about $280 million, I believe,

of requests to keep us in the forefront, but I remind you in a visit

to Japan a month ago the Japanese are investing $900 million for

46

that country alone in nanotechnology because they do understand

that that is the future.

The CHAIRMAN. Getting a well-qualified teacher in every classroom, having that teacher competent in terms of math and science,

giving teacher quality a priority in funding—you have outlined

these recommendations. What is really necessary? I think you

would find that the American people, of all the issues on education,

the one that is at the top—there are a number that are very, very

close to the top, but at the top is having a well-qualified teacher

in the classroom.

Now you list here the kinds of steps which are necessary to get

there, but what is your sense, knowing the institution that you

served nobly in and understanding what is happening out in the

grassroots and having heard and having a series of hearings, what

is the national will?

Mr. GLENN. Part of it is resources, but I think we addressed our

report—we made sure the report got in the hands of every school

board member in America—we think we got about 85 percent of

them—because we thought that is where the changes could be

made more rapidly than anywhere else. And we have had some

good responses back from some school board members, too, that are

taking the issue to heart.

The first thing we stressed, though, was improving the present

status of math and science teaching in the classrooms right now.

How do we take an existing bad situation where 25 percent of the

people teaching math never took that as a major or a minor, never

were trained to teach math? I can see why up to the fourth grade

I could probably teach math up to the fourth grade, but beyond

that, when you get into algebra, advanced algebra, and so on, then

you need special training to do that kind of teaching, and that is

the reason why things fall off. Twenty percent of our science teachers, the same way.

In the more lengthy report here this translates into greater numbers. It is up in the 60 percentile of our students that are not getting adequate training in math and science in the schools, particularly in the urban schools and some of the ones that have the least

facilities, the least ability to get good teachers into those particular

areas.

To get good teachers right now and train the ones in place right

now, we think you have to do a needs assessment. We had summer

institutes, inquiry groups, leadership training, Internet portal access, coordinating councils, reward programs. They are all listed in

the back of our report there as to what we think need to be done

to upgrade people where they are right now.

Number two, how do we get more people in? How do we recruit

good people and improve their preparation? And we make some

suggestions in that area of exemplary models that can be followed,

some things to do on recruitment, math and science teaching academics, not brick and mortar, but reorganizing some of our teacher

training areas, and improving the work environment, not the least

of which is pay. We just refuse across the country to pay teachers

what teachers are worth, so it is no wonder that the good math and

science people are hired off by industry at probably double the salVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
47

ary that they are able to make as teachers. Business district partnerships are another area that we talk about, also.

Also, in high school quite a different area, Mr. Chairman, has

been mentioned here today, though I think we should be challenging our kids to a more rigorous course in school. I think that is a

very important thing. You go to Japan or Germany or some of

these other places around the world. You visit a classroom and the

kids are generally about 2 years ahead of our kids in math and

science in what they are studying. What our seniors in high school

would be studying, they are studying as freshmen or sophomores

in high school because they have a far more rigorous system that

leads up to it.

All that means that at the farther level down in the school system we need teachers better trained at a lower level if we are going

to alter that, so that our kids come out of high school with the

same level of education and do not need remedial education before

they have to go on to even consider entering college.

So it is a very tough one and particularly when we have our

main support for education still the local school board, the local

school district and what little equalizing funds that the States may

be able to provide to certain districts. But it is a tough one and you

have put your finger on the real part of the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. My time has expired, but I was wondering if we

could ask Linda Rosen if she would visit with our staffs some

morning or afternoon and invite all of our Republican and Democratic staffs and on this and have a working session, as well. If she

would be good enough to do that at some time that would be convenient, I think it would be very valuable.

Ms. ROSEN. I would be happy to.

The CHAIRMAN. And what recommendations they have for us.

Senator Jeffords.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. I am so pleased to be here with

you today, because I think this is probably the most important

hearing we could have for the future of this Nation.

I am convinced that actually some of the problems are very simple. Like if you do not pay your teachers enough to stay in the job,

you do not get the kids to learn too much.

I talked to Rick Mills, head of the New York school system, and

he says, ‘‘Jim, you are absolutely right. Eighty-eight percent of my

math teachers that are still there are over 55 because they are

locked into their pension program and I do not know what I am

going to do when they all get to be the age to retire.’’ When I look over at what the rest of the world does and see how

we handle our school systems relative to pay for teachers, I am

shameful, shameful.

Also, I would just point out that the H1B, we are now up to 1

million certificates of H1Bs for kids to come in from foreign countries, young people coming from foreign countries to take the jobs

that our young people should have. That is shameful that we are

in that kind of a situation.

But to me, you also analyze how—I need some studies done here

and I hope you take note. How do we compare, for instance, with

European and Asian nations on just how we pay our teachers? If

you take a look at the amount of money that goes from the Federal

48

Government around the world as compared to ours, about 30, 40,

50 percent of the money at the local school district comes from the

Government. In our country, it is 7 percent and you cannot compete with having to depend upon the local resources and the local

property tax to pay the teachers.

So unless we do something about getting the money to the areas

that it is needed to hire the teachers, we are not going to attract

the teachers or anything else. I hope maybe you can do a study for

me and really outline as to what every other country does with respect to paying their teachers. Japan is the best example. They

make sure that their teaching level of pay is within the top 10 percent of wage-earners in Japan, it is my understanding. These come

from some of the work that the AFT did some years back. So I hope

we can get some real credible information so that we can get to the

core of this.

Incidentally, the United States Government pays just 1 percent

of our total Federal budget toward education, elementary and secondary anyway, and I think post-secondary, as well. So it is a small

amount and it is shameful that we do not put more into it.

The only time we really did take notice was back after World

War II when we had a similar situation. Right now we have no

adequate number of math teachers. Back in World War II we had

millions of GIs that came back that had nothing more than a high

school education and many of them did not even have that. So

what did we do? We passed the GI bill and that moved us from 1

percent of the Federal budget up to 7 percent of the Federal budget

and that brought about an incredible educational opportunity for

all of our GIs. They motivated themselves and lobbied and got it

done.

So what I want to end up with is hopefully I can get the NSF

to verify what I am saying because there is not anything else that

really puts it together in a form that we can go back to Congress

and say look, here is what everybody else in the world does and

here is what we do and guess what? These are the results of us

not doing that.

So I would like maybe a comment or something, but I get so energized on this that I sometimes lose track of the time. John, do

you have any comments you might make?

Mr. GLENN. Yes, I do. Out of our report on page 36, if you happen to have it right in front of you there, down in the lower lefthand corner, ‘‘The National Center for Education Statistics reports

that on average, teachers earn 29 percent less than other workers

with a baccalaureate degree.’’ That is just general, across the board

baccalaureate, whatever they are going into. They earn 29 percent

less—$35,048 per year compared to $49,362 per year. That was in

1997, a differential that has nearly quadrupled during the economic expansion of the 1990s. It is getting worse instead of better.

You would think that we would have learned enough that we are

going to have to pay teachers to keep them in the job. And the demands of the economy and workplace are widening this gap. Given

that the national average starting salary for teachers is $25,735,

the teaching profession is nowhere near being a financially competitive option for most young people who leave college with backVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
49

grounds in math and science. And we have to change it; you are

absolutely right.

Senator JEFFORDS. Dr. Colwell, can you do some studies for me?

Ms. COLWELL. Yes, we can certainly provide the comparative

data. I would add that this is an interesting phenomenon of the decline in performance of students that is beginning to appear in

other countries, as well, including Japan. At the moment the Japanese students are performing better, but when I was talking to my

colleagues in Japan a few weeks ago the science minister said yes,

but once they get to university, they are not going into math and

science majors.

So it is a curious phenomenon. The performance in England of

students in the elementary, middle and high schools is declining

and the interest in science and mathematics is declining. And there

is the immigration of students who are the scientists and engineers

coming from countries like Turkey, Pakistan and India.

So it is something that I think we have got to address in an

international arena, as well. It is certainly very, very serious for us

because we find that just as your own data quoted, Senator, that

the majority of the students who are, let us say, doing a Ph.D. in

electrical engineering will be—not even a majority, but almost all

of them will be from other countries. We could depend on them to

stay, but that is no longer something we can be sure of because

they are beginning to return because of the opportunities back

home.

So it is something that we can look into for you, sir, but I do

think that this is a kind of global phenomenon that we may want

to have some sort of a summit study on.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. I just get so upset when I see

what we could be doing and what we should be doing, but what we

are not doing and we seem to think it is simple to get the local

school boards to get on the stick or to spend more money, but I do

not know how it is in—I know our State, the property taxes are so

high now, trying to take care of the educational needs, if you want

to get unelected, just try and raise the property taxes. And the only

answer is the Federal Government has to do it and I am going to

try to make sure they do, but we will see how that goes, but I

would like to increase the amount that we pay each year, from 1

percent per year, increase the amount of money we put into the

local schools and after about 10 years we would be up to somewhere around where the Europeans are.

I thank you very much.

Senator Glenn.

Mr. GLENN. Just on the cost of this thing, in our study with this,

in the back of this thing we put what we thought was necessary

and broken down between the Federal, the State and local and

what business might contribute and public-private back here. We

came out with an estimate of a little over $5 billion a year that is

needed right now to do the teacher training and get it going now

and do teacher training and recruitment training, and so on. It is

in the back, the blue page, page 42 if you want to check out what

our figures are.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Clinton.

50

Senator CLINTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted that Senator Glenn is here with us testifying about these

really important matters. And thank you, Dr. Colwell and Dr. Verner. I am just sitting here in great admiration listening to Chairman Kennedy and Senator Jeffords and Senator Glenn talk about

this really important issue. I wish that more people had heeded

their warnings in the past years because the three of them have

certainly sounded the alarm and it is not getting any better. In

fact, it is much worse in our poorer districts where we have concentrations of children of poverty whose first language is not

English, who for all we know have tremendous math and science

capability, but it is not being given an opportunity to flourish. I

mean, they are basically off the track before they get started.

So it is a double disgrace, Senator Jeffords, overall it is, because

of our failure to make these investments, and then in particular,

because of the people that it falls most heavily on.

So I certainly hope that we will heed the recommendations of

Senator Glenn’s fine report and I hope that a lot of those school

board members watch the video and read the report and I hope our

colleagues will, as well, and perhaps we can, with your guidance,

come up with some suggestions about how to turn this around.

I support very strongly the increased funding for NSF. I think

it is clear to all of us that we have to make these investments.

Then, though, we have to act on what we learn. All too often,

Washington—or at least this body—seems to be existing in an evidence-free zone and we have to figure out how to take the results

of the work that NSF, the scientists whom you fund, the kinds of

reports that Senator Glenn has championed, and actually use it as

the basis for policy.

So I think the first step is to make sure we provide the funding.

The second step is actually to heed what you recommend to us and

not continue to just proceed merrily along while the situation worsens.

I had a couple of very specific questions, because certainly I am

very proud of the fact that New York is a recipient of quite a bit

of National Science Foundation funding and there were a couple of

projects that I think hold great promise for our Nation, and indeed,

the world that I wanted to inquire about, Dr. Colwell.

About 5 years ago, scientists at Brookhaven National Lab, in collaboration with Stony Brook University, NYU, Syracuse and about

a dozen others, submitted a proposal for exploring rare particle

physics techniques called the rare violating processes or the RSV

project. I have been told—I am certainly not an expert in this, but

people whom I respect and trust have told me that if funded and

the work is undertaken, RVP could potentially change our understanding of nuclear physics and nature. I know that the project

passed the rigor of NSF peer review; it was placed on the to-do list.

The scientists involved were assured that if their project did not

make it into the fiscal year 2002 budget it would almost certainly

be in the fiscal year 2003 presidential request. However, it was not

included in either.

As a result, it is kind of languishing in—I guess you could say

‘‘the black hole of approved MRE proposals.’’ There is more than

$15 million in foreign contributions waiting to be expended, which

51

is now on the verge of literally disappearing since the collaborators’ international partners are losing faith in the selection process. And

if I have one question and slight criticism of the process, because

I think overall the NSF has done by far the best job of any federally-funded agency, it is that when scientists work as hard as these

have to put into motion this kind of project, have literally global

interest, and then it does not come through, it sets it back and it

sets back the collaborative enterprise.

So first, could you give me an update on the status of the RVP

proposal and when you anticipate it would be funded? And second,

is there a lesson that we should learn from this particular proposal,

which is not unique, but is the one that I know the most about,

that even after MRE projects have been approved in the competitive peer review process, we do not have any prioritized list and it

is hard to know whether somebody should continue to wait, whether they should change direction even if it is a very worthy undertaking.

So how would you help me understand where we are with that

specific project and then more generally, what we can do to avoid

these kinds of hang-ups in the future?

Ms. COLWELL. Well, the status of the RSVP is that it is in a

small set of the National Science Board-approved projects that are

waiting for inclusion in an NSF budget request and it is strictly a

matter of at this point funds that are available.

We have a very careful prioritizing process whereby these

projects go through very intense screening and review within the

foundation. They are then presented to the Science Board for additional evaluation and approval, but then, of course, must negotiate

which projects get funded and we have a priority that those that

are on-going will be funded because it would not be cost-effective

to stop and start. Then those that have been approved and have

gone through Science Board approval then will be in line to be submitted for budget request.

A project becomes a candidate, is determined by a very systematic planning and review process, which involves scientific merit,

feasibility and readiness. In the case of RSVP, it will depend on

funds being available and we would hope that in the coming budget

years we would be able to fund the project.

I have to point out that quite rightly, and through no one’s fault,

there were no new starts in the fiscal year 2001–2002 budget process, which created even more of a bottleneck, so now we do have

several projects which we need to get through the budget process.

Senator CLINTON. And I guess the President’s budget has a decrease. Is that right?

Ms. COLWELL. The decrease is——

Senator CLINTON. In MRE funds.

Ms. COLWELL. Yes.

Senator CLINTON. That reduces it by about 9 percent, right?

Ms. COLWELL. Part of that is due to one of the projects nearing

completion, so it is not necessarily a decrease in the funding.

Senator CLINTON. Well, do you think we should increase MRE

funding specifically in this reauthorization?

Ms. COLWELL. I think that the answer to the question is that scientists need tools and what we need to understand is that we fund

52

people who have very good ideas. We fund their ideas, but they

have to have tools to work with and tools mean telescopes, investment in platforms for research, like the earthquake engineering

platform, the nanotech manufacturing initiative, and so forth. So

scientists do need tools.

Senator CLINTON. Related to that is that, and this is, I think, a

very hard decision, but one of the very few criticisms that I have

heard is that the current NSF budget is rather heavily tilted toward the life sciences at the present time and that there are other

sources for life science research, as compared to research in physics, chemistry, et cetera, which often lays the groundwork for future life science breakthroughs or at least in conjunction with life

science research create the synergy that is needed for the kind of

advances. Do you think we should address that in the reauthorization?

Ms. COLWELL. Let me answer that very directly. Actually, we do

not have an imbalance within the NSF budget toward the biosciences and life sciences. In fact, the funding that we provide is

funding for projects that would not be funded by NIH—fundamental ecology, fundamental developmental biology, study of organisms

other than the human or closely related organisms.

We fund within the life sciences some very, very important research. For example, the capacity for bioinfomatics really comes

from the NSF funding of mathematics and biology. The genomics

that we do, plant genomics, very critical. Senator Bond has been

very, very supportive of that area. NIH would not be funding the

Erabidopsis genome, for example. This is critical and very important funding.

Indeed, the balance is important and we tried very hard to address that. And I think it is critical to point out that we also address very carefully the core disciplinary programs because it is

very important to address the opportunities in interdisciplinary

science, like nanotechnology, which involves biology, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and you cannot have excellent

nanotechnology if you do not have excellent engineering, chemistry,

mathematics and physics. So clearly we have to continue investing

in those core areas.

And another aspect of it is that we have to tie that more and

more to the social and behavioral sciences and we do have in our

budget request $10 million to get established an initiative in the

social behavioral sciences and the economic sciences. Those are

very critical because we need to look at the computer-human interface. We must not make the mistake of making huge advances

without bringing along an understanding of how humans interact

with these new tools, with these new ideas.

So yes, a balanced portfolio is really important.

Senator CLINTON. Well, certainly we hope that we can increase

your funding so that a lot of these hard choices do not have to be

made.

Ms. COLWELL. Thank you.

Senator CLINTON. I think we are at a point now where we have

a tremendous opportunity to make advances along a range of scientific enterprises and endeavors that I hope that we will make the

53

investments in and we need the pipeline that Senator Glenn has

talked about so that we have scientists we can fund in the future.

I just want to end with referring to the point that Senator Jeffords made with the visa issue because I think that we have to figure out a way to incentivize more of our own students and citizens

because I think that we are going to have some continuing issues

around the visas and we have to figure out a way to—it is something I have talked to Senator Jeffords about; he has a real passion

about it and any ideas any of you have.

I mean, it is not that we want to eliminate that process, but the

process needs to recognize that right now all we have done is used

it in many ways to fill positions that we should be taking a longterm approach toward filling ourselves. It is a short-cut way to try

to provide some of the additional math-science personnel that we

need, but it is not a long-term solution.

Ms. COLWELL. May I offer a comment? I think both of you are

extremely strong on a very important point, and that is we are now

looking at the sources of the talent that we need in the future and

community colleges do represent one very important one. Let me

share my recent visit to Mercy College, which is in Tarrytown, New

York.

Senator CLINTON. I know, right.

Ms. COLWELL. I gave a commencement address there recently.

That is a very interesting institution because it has 10,000 students and 80 percent of those students are attending college for the

very first time in their lives. The average age is 29. Forty percent

are Hispanic, 40 percent are African–American and 20 percent are

Asian and Caucasian. These students, the valedictorian was a refugee from, I believe, Afghanistan who arrived at Mercy College

speaking no English at all and graduated as the valedictorian and

gave the speech in English and has performed extremely well.

I think the talent in the community colleges is sort of like Willy

Sutton. Why did you rob banks? Because that is where the money

is. Well, we are finding that that is where students are that we

really need to bring into the workforce. So that is an area where

we are making greater investment.

Senator CLINTON. I look forward to hearing about that because

I agree with that completely.

I have some additional questions that I will submit for the

record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLINTON

I would like to thank Chairman Kennedy and Ranking Member Gregg for holding

this important hearing today on the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation.

The National Science Foundation has a long-standing reputation as one of the federal government’s most efficient and smoothly-operating independent agencies. In

honor of those qualities, our Chair has decided to hold just one single hearing on

the entire authorization. That is because while NSF faces crucial questions of the

day related to our nation’s progress—which we could discuss for days—we believe

the agency does an excellent job and that this authorization will move swiftly. I do

a have a few questions that I will raise later in the hearing.

I am delighted that our committee could hear from such an esteemed panel of witnesses. It is a pleasure to see my friend, Senator John Glenn back in the Senate,

where he left an outstanding legacy of promoting the education of the sciences from

54

kindergarten to the postdoctoral years. And he continues to be such a strong voice

through the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Policy.

The National Science Foundation is a national treasure. Since its establishment

more than 50 years ago, it has fueled scientific discovery and spurred technological

progress that has transformed our world into a place that is so vastly different from

the nation we were at the close of World War II.

Whether its life-saving technology such as magentic resonance imaging, or the

dawning of the Information Age, with the creation of the internet, the National

Science Foundation is the engine of progress.

I am proud that New York has been on the forefront of that innovation. My state

brims over with an extraordinary level of intellectual capital and promise. We have

been blessed with hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities, thanks to the NSF. In

fact, New York holds the distinct honor of having the second highest number of

NSF-funded projects, second to California.

From Ithaca to Buffalo, and from New York City and Long Island, the NSF enables cutting edge research and state-of-the-art experimentation to take place in

every corner of my state. Whether it’s the Science and Technology Center for High

Pressure Research at Stony Brook University exploring the properties of earth materials or the Sciencenter at Cornell where local elementary school children learn

about things like nanotechnology and experience the excitement of science, the NSF

delivers a bounty of gifts to all New Yorkers.

New York holds a unique and enviable position in the emerging field of

nanotechnology. Again, with the help of NSF, New York has become what I like to

call ‘‘the Nanotech State of the 21st Century.’’

New York is home to three of the nation’s six nanocenters—located Columbia,

Cornell, and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. These were created as a result of the

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) which was established during my husband’s administration.

Just this week, New York celebrated another exciting milestone in its emergence

as the ‘‘capital of Nanotechnology,’’ when the Department of Energy announced its

plans to create a seventh center at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island.

We are proud that the Center for Functional Nanomaterials at Brookhaven will be

added to our amazing arsenal of scientific innovation.

For all these reasons, New Yorkers have a lot at stake in the reauthorization of

NSF. We believe, as the House Science Committee supports, that it is high time for

us to double NSF budget over five years. The President has proposed a 5 percent

increase or $240 million above the fiscal year 2002 level. But factor in inflation, and

that increase amounts to a mere 1.4 percent.

Second, while funding for NSF overall has increased from fiscal year 2001 to the

fiscal year 2003 budget request, the physical sciences on the whole have not had

their fair share of resources, particularly for individual investigator research grants,

which have traditionally been at the core of the NSF mission. For example, support

for physics research grants has declined by 1.5 percent from FYO1 to the fiscal year

2003 request; Chemistry research research grants support has grown by only 4.2

percent. However, the biological sciences have recently enjoyed a much more privileged provision with substantially higher increases. What’s important to remember

is that advances in the physical sciences are often the building blocks for advances

in the biological and medical sciences.

Finally, I would like to applaud the NSF for it’s commitment to funding math and

science education in the K-12 level in addition to the post-graduate and doctoral levels.

As President Eisenhower used to say during the Sputnik days, an educated citizenry in the sciences is absolutely vital to our nation’s security. Now as our nation

tackles the formidable challenge of how to protect our Homeland Security, our investment in progress matters more than ever before and our desire to support the

sciences and technology has become an imperative.

Thank you.

Senator JEFFORDS. I want to end with going to another area of

great concern for me and that is early education—that is the preschool, especially the zero to five—as to where this Nation is in

that regard. Again we are lacking miserably compared to the rest

of the world.

Just to give you some information, I know in our own office, for

instance, one of my staff members has two children under 5 years,

and so he stayed out all night, sleeping overnight, in order to get

55

a slot to pay $1,000 per child to get an education in the early years.

To me, every other nation, industrialized nation, anyway, except

ours, provides that under the normal school system and I would

hope maybe I can get some sort of study as to where we compare

and what we are doing in this country because that is just terrible.

As I remember, the studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s

showed that if you do not get the education in the 3- to 4-year-old

area, that you are bad off the rest of your life. I mean you are not

going to maximize the rest of your life. Yet we provide very, very

little for that.

I would appreciate it if you have any information on that.

Ms. VERNER. I think you are absolutely right. As a matter of fact,

there are a number of studies out now that show that there is a

tremendously positive correlation between preschool programs and

outcomes later in that child’s life.

Also, I think you could turn to neuroscience and cognitive studies

now that clearly show that there is a massive and important

amount of brain development that is occurring in children of exactly that age and probably in the 3- or 4-year-old group there may

be some real potential for developing sort of a continuum with the

K–12 system, rather than individual activities in different types of

preschools, but actually integrated into a system that the teachers

can refer back to some of that early education.

One of the things that comes out of cognitive science is that there

is nothing more effective in education, in being able to get new information into the child’s mind than referring to previous information and we should use those years of 3- and 4-years old to start

putting information into their minds as a part of early education.

Where we are right now, we have submitted a very small local

grant with the Harrisburg school district for this LabLion program

I talked about earlier, but part of that grant would actually be to

try to develop a preschool extension of the elementary school

science program and what does that look like? We are not necessarily talking about 3-year-olds with test tubes and graduated

cylinders, but they can actually play games where something like

density and direction is important for winning the game and maybe

even use some of the tools that they will later use in their elementary science education and beyond.

I just think that from my discussion with educators and from

neuroscientists that we are certainly wasting a tremendous educational opportunity by not addressing the preschool years in a

very serious way.

Senator JEFFORDS. Thank you. That is what I wanted to hear.

Now I feel a little more secure about calling an end to the hearing.

I would like to stay the rest of the day, but I know you all have

places to go and I feel like I am kind of monopolizing here.

I tell you, we have a long way to go and I appreciate your information, which will help us get on the way. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 3:28 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Additional material follows.]

56

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Tech Talent program

and the bipartisan legislation that I have introduced to permanently authorize this

innovative initiative and to urge the Committee to include this provision in the upcoming reauthorization of the National Science Foundation.

As the Committee well knows, America’s technological prowess is unequaled in

the world today—which is why, despite our economic slowdown and the financial

burdens of prosecuting the war against terror and ensuring our collective defense,

we still have the strongest, most vibrant economy on the planet.

However, our long-term competitive standing and economic security could well be

at risk if we do not address a troubling trendline in our workforce—the mismatch

between the demand and supply of workers with science and engineering training.

Studies show that the number of jobs requiring significant technical skills is projected to grow by more than 50 percent in the United States over the next 10 years.

But outside of the life sciences, the number of degrees awarded in science and engineering has been flat or declining. This has helped fuel a well-chronicled shortage

of qualified New Economy workers.

We have tried to temporarily plug this human capital hole with a stopgap of foreign workers. Unfortunately, there is a broad consensus among high-tech leaders

and policymakers that it could be a serious mistake to prolong this dependence and

essentially render our GDP contingent on the supply of H-IB visa holders.

That may sound like a bit of an overstatement to some. But the reality is that

technological innovation is now widely understood to be the major driver of economic growth, not to mention a critical factor in our military superiority. It is widely understood, moreover, that we cannot expand our economy in the future if we

don’t take steps now to expand our domestic pool of human intellectual capital, the

next generation of people who will incubate and implement the next generation of

ideas.

Now, most answers to serious economic challenges flow from the private sector,

which is where growth ultimately occurs. But there are things that the Federal Government can do to help, particularly when it comes to educating and training our

workforce. We can provide leadership focus, and not least of all, resources—and that

is the purpose of the Tech Talent program.

Specifically, the Tech Talent program aims to fix a critical link in this ‘‘tech talent’’ gap—undergraduate education in science, math, engineering, and technology.

As established in our bill, it would provide competitive grants to institutions of higher learning—from universities to community colleges—to encourage them to find

creative methods for increasing the number of graduates in these disciplines.

This is not another scholarship program, but a targeted, results-driven initiative

that goes straight to the gatekeepers. We’re not asking them to change their admissions policies, but, in effect, to design new ‘‘e-missions’’ policies. Come up with effective ideas, and we will provide the dollars to make them work.

For example, institutions could propose to add or strengthen the interdisciplinary

components of undergraduate science education. Or they could establish targeted

support programs for women and minorities—who are 54 percent of our total workforce, but only 22 percent of scientists and engineers—to increase enrollment in

these fields. Or they could partner with local technology companies to provide summer industry internships for ongoing research experience.

This initiative was conceived with strong bipartisan, bicameral support. Last year,

Senators Mikulski, Bond, Frist, Domenici, and I introduced S. 1549, the ‘‘Technology

Talent Act of 2001’’; a House companion bill, H.R. 3130, was introduced by House

Science Committee Chairman Boehlert and Representative Larson. By the end of

the year, Congress had agreed to appropriate $5 million for this fiscal year to

jumpstart the program, even though our authorizing legislation had not yet been

passed.

Today, the number of co-sponsors of our authorizing bill has risen to 14 on the

Senate side. The House bill, which now has 43 co-sponsors, received unanimous support during the House Science Committee markup, and is anticipated to reach the

floor soon as the core of a larger undergraduate education bill.

The program also has extremely broad support outside the Congress. The Administration has embraced Tech Talent as a priority, including funding for it in its

budget request for FY 2003. And the response from leaders in industry, academia,

and educational communities has been tremendous—we have received letters of support from TechNet, Semiconductor Industry Association, National Alliance of Business, K-12 Science, Mathematics, Engineering & Technology Coalition, American

57

Association of State Colleges and Universities, Texas Instruments, and the American Society for Engineering Education, to name but a few.

Even more encouraging are the preliminary data obtained from NSF’s Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program (STEP),

which is the formal name of the Tech Talent program that NSF established with

its FY02 appropriated funds. With enough money for between 10 to 15 grants, the

NSF received 177 applications requesting a total of $59.7 million in aid—clear evidence of the vast interest in, and need for, the Tech Talent program among undergraduate institutions seeking to implement reforms in science and math education.

We all realize that solving the undergraduate problem is not going to singlehandedly close our talent gap. At the same time, we should also realize that the

talent gap cannot be closed without first solving the problem at the undergraduate

level. Therefore, I urge you to consider incorporating the Tech Talent program into

this year’s NSF reauthorization bill. In doing so, we will be helping to ensure that

the young minds of today will be capable of mastering and fueling the high-tech

economies of tomorrow.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROCKEFELLER

Chairman Kennedy and Members of the HELP Committee, I am proud to submit

testimony today on behalf of a special, bipartisan initiative within the National

Science Foundation (NSF) reauthorization bill that would promote math and science

education, known as the National Mathematics and Science Partnership Act. I was

proud to sponsor separate legislation last year with Senators Roberts and Kennedy.

Chairman Kennedy, your longstanding commitment to quality education is well

known, so it is always an honor to work so closely with you and others on education

investments.

This legislation, which is incorporated into the National Science Foundation authorization bill, is an important investment in elementary and secondary education,

as well as our economy. This legislation would create the Mathematics and Science

Partnerships at the NSF, it would invest in the Noyce Scholarships to attract top

college math and science students to teach at disadvantaged schools, and it would

provide a range of incentives to bolster math and science education, key subjects for

our future. In addition to bipartisan support in the Senate, President Bush has included $200 million in his pending budget for the math and science partnerships.

Placing a keen focus on developing quality partnerships with specific funding is

targeted at improving teaching of technical subjects to students in elementary and

secondary schools. We know that teaching of math and science in the early grades

is pivotal to continuing science education in high school and college. Such partnerships will involve the broader community, including local business and industry, in

the educational process. They increase the number of qualified teachers while providing for improved access to support in the form of materials, research opportunities, and Centers of Research on Learning.

Too many studies have indicated that as a country, we are seriously failing to effectively convey to K-12 students scientific knowledge that is needed for them to

excel in major technical fields. Our elementary and secondary students currently

lack mastery of technical subjects. While our 4th graders are on par with the rest

of the world, by the time they reach the 12th grade, they rank in the bottom half

of countries in these areas.

Students in this country arrive at college ill-equipped to study mathematics,

science, and engineering. Part of the problem can be attributed to a serious shortage

of qualified math and science teachers to guide our children. As a consequence, we

are losing our competitive edge in the modern world. This is an intolerable situation

for which there is no excuse. This initiative provides concrete action to solve the

problem with a major long-term commitment to invest in our future by increasing

funds to improve math and science education.

Such partnerships can help prevent America from losing its competitive edge in

the modern technological world. These partnerships will focus on a wide range of

efforts, from professional development to curriculum reform for grades K-12. The

partnerships may include the State educational agency and half must include businesses. The partnerships are intended to develop and evaluate innovative approaches to education in mathematics, science, engineering, and other technical subjects.

In addition to the partnerships, I am particularly committed to encouraging qualified people to enter the teaching profession. This bill establishes a scholarship program for college students who commit to becoming K-12 math or science teachers

after graduation. To keep educators at the top of their field, $15 million in grant

58

money will be awarded for math and science teachers to do research and improve

their own classroom performance. Twenty million dollars are set aside each year to

expand the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education

Library, a digital library that disseminates scientific resources through the Internet.

Strengthening math and science education within the National Science Foundation

for elementary and secondary education is a high priority for me.

The National Science Foundation has been a leader on quality education. My

State of West Virginia has been enormously helped by several National Science

Foundation education programs. The implementation of the Coordinated and Thematic Science (CATS) grant provided training to nearly 1,000 West Virginia teachers over a 5-year period. I met with the science teachers involved in this project and

their enthusiasm and commitment was extraordinary. This statewide award has developed teams of mentor teachers of grades 7-10 who have provided outreach, support, and training to their colleagues. My State is also undertaking a similar initiative in math, known as Project MERIT.

Another example of a successful education investment is the National Science

Foundation’s Teacher Enhancement Grant, which enabled my State to provide students with a solid foundation in science and technology. This grant has made it possible for students in West Virginia to become better equipped and more competitive

in the workplace and in post-secondary classrooms. These efforts made a major difference in the quality of educational offerings available to students, as these programs have provided a tremendous opportunity for West Virginia to invest in our

teachers and improve education in our schools. Given the strong record of success

for National Science Foundation education initiatives, I believe that this new program is a worthwhile project for my State and our country.

Strengthening the sciences is important not just for the sake of knowledge, but

also to ensure that America remains at the forefront of major technological advances. Incorporating the National Mathematics and Partnership Act into the National Science Reauthorization bill should be a priority. These partnerships and investments in scholarships and professional development are key steps to reclaiming

the lead in science and mathematics education. Throughout the process, I look forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and others to achieve our goals for math

and science education.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME I. FRIEDMAN

Chairman Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Members of the Committee, I would like

to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for this hearing to present my

views about the National Science Foundation. At the outset, let me express my appreciation for the sustained support that you have provided for the NSF and for

your commitment to improving NSF’s ability to serve our national interests. I believe that the House of Representatives has shown great wisdom by supporting H.R.

4664, which includes authorization for a 15 percent increase for the NSF budget in

each of the next 3 years. In preparing your own NSF reauthorization bill, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to support such an increase, and I hope that you will highlight the

importance of the core research programs, since they provide the basis for all of

NSF’s high-priority areas.

My testimony today concerns two closely related issues: NSF’s role in the development and operation of scientific facilities and the NSF’s Major Research Equipment

and Facilities Construction (MREFC) program, which was established to support the

construction of such facilities. To provide a context for my observations and recommendations, let me begin by underscoring the extent to which science has

changed since NSF’s founding a little more than 50 years ago.

During the first half of the 20th Century, industrial laboratories accounted for

most of the research in the United States, both applied and basic. World War II

changed the picture dramatically, and by the early 1960s, the Federal Government

was sponsoring two-thirds of all American research activity. Excluding work performed under contract by the defense industry, most of those Federal funds supported research carried out by relatively small academic groups. Almost all the researchers were American citizens, and for the most part they worked in on-site university laboratories in self-contained scientific disciplines.

The world of science in the 21st Century is remarkably different. Industry now

accounts for more than two-thirds of R&D spending. But unlike the early post war

period, when Bell Labs and other private-sector facilities played starring roles in the

basic research endeavor, industry now focuses almost strictly on short-term applied

research. Today, corporations rely heavily on basic research carried out by university scientists, who are funded almost exclusively by the Federal Government. For

59

that reason, agencies, such as the NSF, currently play an even more critical role

in the science and technology enterprise than they did 50 years ago.

It is important to recognize that the way in which university science is conducted

has also changed significantly. Research groups are larger. Equipment is far more

complex, and many scientists carry out their research at national facilities. The scientific disciplines are also far less disjointed: they have become intertwined and

highly interdependent.

Federal funding of basic research has tried to keep pace with the changing scientific landscape. Programs that cut across disciplines, such as the Nano-Science/

Nano-Technology Intiative, have become integral to the Federal research portfolio.

And large facilities, such as X-ray light sources and high-resolution telescopes, have

become essential to the federally-supported research enterprise.

Although its focus remains the university individual investigator, NSF today supports major facilities where many of these scientists carry out their research. The

Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), with its associated X-ray light source

(CHESS), is one of the early examples. It has been an extremely productive facility

and currently serves particle and condensed matter physicists, as well as structural

biologists.

But constructing and operating major facilities can have a substantial impact on

NSF’s overall programming. To prevent such projects from overwhelming the NSF

budget and causing irreparable damage to the individual investigator core programs, NSF established the MREFC account a few years ago. It is a very worthwhile concept, but I believe that it is still suffering from growing pains. While

MREFC projects undergo close scrutiny in a competitive peer-review process, NSF

currently does not provide the science community or Congress with a prioritized list

of approved projects. The lack of transparency has prevented orderly planning by

the research community. As a result, science has suffered and international research partners have been left dangling.

The Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP) project is a good example. Conceived almost 5 years ago, it passed the rigor of peer review and was placed on a

‘‘to-do list’’ by the National Science Board (NSB). The scientists involved were assured that if their project didn’t make it into the FY 2002 budget, it would almost

certainly be in the FY 2003 presidential request. Neither happened, and $15-million

in foreign contributions is about to vaporize, since the collaboration’s international

partners are understandably losing faith in the selection process.

To remedy the MREFC difficulties, I suggest that the NSF be required annually

to submit to Congress the full list of approved projects in a prioritized order that

has been established with the concurrence of the NSB. The NSF should provide an

explanation of the criteria used for setting these priorities and a statement of its

reasons for any deviations from the priorities it set the previous year.

The NSF should also be requested to present a long-range strategic budget that

takes into account the operation of the facilities it plans to construct. Otherwise core

program budgets could be jeopardized when operating funds are needed to bring a

new facility on line. I would also like to emphasize that core program and MREFC

funds should not be commingled, either in planning or in practice. Finally, for management and oversight purposes, NSF’s annual budget should have a separate line

for facilities operation; and all projected facilities operation costs and MREFC construction costs should be presented each year as part of a rolling 5-year plan.

In concluding my remarks, I would like to emphasize how important the National

Science Foundation has been in advancing both science and education in our Nation.

In addressing some of issues that I have mentioned, legislation should also contain

features to increase the effectiveness with which the NSF can carry out its mission.

The NSF is a national treasure. It stands as a model of peer-reviewed science and

individual investigator research. Its financial and programmatic health is essential

to our Nation’s future.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IOANNIS MIAOULIS

The National Science Foundation—(NSF)—through its numerous investments in

research and education, has made this Nation stronger, and better educated. At

Tufts University, we are particularly proud of NSF’s contributions since the founder

of NSF, Dr. Vannevar Bush, was one of our own engineering students and graduates. His assistant in starting the National Science Foundation, Prof. Lloyd

Trefethen, was actually my undergraduate advisor and mentor while I was an undergraduate at Tufts.

60

The following constitutes my perspective concerning the reauthorization of NSF

and its mission to advance science and engineering education. My comments center

on three issues:

The impact of NSF on the Nation’s overall research and development portfolio and

the benefits of NSF-funded basic research, including research done at Tufts University.

The impact of NSF on science and engineering education and training programs

in universities such as Tufts.

The impact of NSF on improving K-12 science and engineering education programs and encouraging partnerships between K-12 schools and universities

The impact of NSF on the Nation’s overall research and development portfolio and

the benefits of NSF-funded basic research, including research done at Tufts University

During the past few years, there has been a significant shift of the sources of

basic research from industry research facilities to university and national laboratories. Industries are focusing more and more on applied research and development

with near-term high return on investment. A major contributor of the growth of the

U.S. economy during the second part of the last century was Federal investment in

basic scientific research. Investments in the areas of physical science and engineering have resulted in the best science and technology program in the world. Investments in these areas have also advanced other areas of science and even human

health. A significant component of the research, which culminated with the development of the CAT scan, was conducted in our Physics department at Tufts under the

late Prof. Cormack who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1980. Clearly, computer

science, mathematics, physics, and engineering are essential to the advancement of

human health and provide the foundation for new discoveries in biomedical science.

However, funding for the physical sciences and engineering has remained level,

while the increase being proposed for the NIH for FY2003 alone is more than twothirds of the current total FY2002 NSF budget. Our Nation has an unbalanced R&D

portfolio, favoring the life sciences. Under-funding the physical and engineering

sciences will in the long run have a detrimental effect on the life sciences.

Inventions and discoveries that help humanity, such as X-ray machines and Penicillin, often occur serendipitously. From my personal experience, the NSF has been

critical in supporting basic and applied research activities in my laboratory that has

continued to lead from one exciting discovery to another. Moreover, the winding sequence of findings has been supported by a variety of NSF programs that defy logic.

I began my research in studying thermal processing to recrystallize silicon films

used for the microelectronics industry. This research was supported by the Engineering Directorate at NSF and has helped to improve the way we make computer

chips. The research also led to an interesting discovery whereby minute changes in

film thickness resulted in large changes in heat absorption and quality of the crystal.

This fascinating phenomenon appeared to be a powerful means of controlling the

thermal process. As an aside, I wondered whether nature had taken advantage of

this phenomenon. Asking a graduate student to take a leap of faith, we delved into

an exploration to find examples of biological thin films that utilize the phenomenon.

We found that butterflies do, in fact, have thin films optimized to serve multi-functions as signaling as well as collecting solar energy. The NSF Biology Division funded a project to develop an innovative tool to examine these structures. Our results

found an amazing array of complex thin film structures, some that looked like

spherical mirrors and others like pine trees in a forest. Why and how these structures are created is a subject of interest and debate among academic communities.

These complex structures inspired my research team to look into emerging research areas in microelectromechanical systems and nanotechnologies. How can we

create these microscale structures in innovative ways to serve interesting engineering functions? NSF’s Engineering Directorate again is supporting my team’s research into rapid manufacturing of microscale and mesoscale structures. This research may lead to new means of developing sensors and actuators to be used in

Homeland Security as pathogen detectors or to create high throughput scanners to

discover life-saving drugs. Through NSF’s support of basic and applied research, we

have been able to make a number of key findings that have linked together progressively.

Other Tufts engineering faculty have obtained NSF support for fundamental studies into fibrous protein structure assembly for the past 6 years. These studies are

supported through the Divisions of Materials Research, Bioengineering and Biology.

The scientific insights gained from these studies have provided an improved understanding of this important family of structural proteins (e.g., collagens, silks). This

information has led to the direct use of these proteins in new biomaterials applicaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:09 Feb 24, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 80421 SLABOR2 PsN: SLABOR2
61

tions and in new tissue engineering studies. The result of these efforts have included a variety of clinically relevant studies supported through the NIH, new interdisciplinary studies and opportunities for undergraduate, graduate and post-graduate students, and new spin-off companies based on the findings. Other engineering

faculty at Tufts is working on NSF-funded projects that will revolutionize mammography techniques by using optical spectroscopy for imaging of human tissues.

Although we have had our successes in attracting NSF funds for conducting basic

research, we have had numerous disappointing moments. Many good ideas that are

submitted and are rated excellent by the majority of the reviewers do not get funded. And the funding for the fortunate ones is limited in duration and annual

amount. In his March 12, 2002 testimony before your committee, Dr. Stephen Director from the University of Michigan, presented detailed statistics of this problem.

Additional funds are needed to enable NSF to fund more great ideas at a higher

funding level and duration. The Nation’s creative minds should spend more time focusing on their research and less time trying to get funding.

THE IMPACT OF NSF ON SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION AND TRAINING

PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITIES SUCH AS TUFTS

Two of the greatest challenges that our Nation’s engineering schools face today

are attracting and retaining students in general, and more specifically, women and

students of color. Although the demand for engineering graduates has increased

dramatically, engineering enrollments have decreased by approximately 15 percent

during the last 8 years. In addition, the percentages of students of color and women

are quite small. Approximately 18 percent of the undergraduate engineering population nationally is female. It is difficult to attract engineering students, yet it is

more challenging to retain them. It is customary for an engineering school to lose

30-50 percent of its undergraduate population during the undergraduate years. At

Tufts, we have reversed both of these trends, and I strongly believe that without

the support we received from NSF we would not have been able to succeed.

Most students do not drop out of Engineering because they cannot handle the

work. In fact, the national average grade point average of female students transferring out of Engineering is a B+. They transfer out because they simply do not find

the field interesting. Unfortunately, most of them transfer out during their first

year, before they have taken any engineering courses. Through a grant we received

in the early 1990s from the Division of Undergraduate Education of NSF we were

able to change the engineering curriculum so that in their first year, students take

courses designed to introduce engineering in an interesting and playful way. We

now have a pool of over 60 engineering courses that stem from personal research

interests and hobbies of our faculty. We have courses focusing on acoustics (Design

and Performance of Musical Instruments), Fluid Mechanics (Life in Moving Fluids),

Heat Transfer (Gourmet Engineering), Biotechnology, and Digital Image Processing.

They are taught by our best teachers with passion, since they created them and

focus on their personal interest. We use to have a net loss of 15 percent of our undergraduates. With this NSF-funded curriculum we managed to become the only engineering school in the country where more students transfer into engineering from

liberal arts than from engineering to liberal arts. We actually see an increase in our

class size most years.

Funding from NSF has enabled us to reshape our curriculum and make it attractive to both men and women. We were able to adjust our pedagogies in laboratory

activities to better deliver the content to our students, and provide them with numerous opportunities to engage in research through NSF’s Research Experiences for

Undergraduate program. As a result, our program grew to be very desirable. During

the last 8 years, our application pool doubled, the average SAT scores of our incoming students increased by 70 points exceeding 1400, and the high school graduation

ranking of our students decreased from top 13 percent of their class to top 5 percent

of their class. Also the number of women students increased by 26 percent. About

a third of our undergraduate students are women. The 4-year graduation rate of our

women students is over 95 percent.

Although we received a number of grants from NSF to be able to accomplish this,

we had many, many excellent proposals rejected simply because of lack of funds.

Just imagine the impact that NSF grants could have nationally in attracting and

retaining engineering students if the Undergraduate Division had more funds to

award. Many other engineering schools can design and implement programs such

as the one that transformed our school.

62

THE IMPACT OF NSF ON IMPROVING K-12 SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION PRO- GRAMS AND ENCOURAGING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN K-12 SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES

NSF is the most significant supporter of technological and scientific literacy in our

Nation. For the last 15 years, the Tufts School of Engineering has been a national

leader in engineering and science outreach in preK-12 schools. We have rearchitected the entire K-8 science curricula for the public school districts, written

textbooks that are currently used by millions of middle-school children, created

Robolab, a Lego-based educational product that is used by more in more than 15,000

classrooms in twenty different countries and won numerous international awards.

Our goal is to introduce engineering as a new discipline in all preK-12 public and

private schools in the U.S. and make engineering an equally appealing and exciting

discipline to both girls and boys. The National Science Foundation has been the biggest supporter of these efforts. Massachusetts is now the first State in the Nation

to require, through standards-based programs and testing, engineering as a discipline, starting at the kindergarten level. Many other States have expressed interest in following Massachusetts’ innovative step.

Of course, not all children want to become, or should become engineers and scientists. While our Nation desperately needs more engineers and scientists who

would clearly benefit from engineering education beginning in grade school, why introduce engineering to all young children?

Technological literacy has become basic literacy. Most of the tangible products

such as cars, telephones, and airplanes, and processes, with which we spend most

of our lives, are technologies that resulted from engineering efforts. A literate citizen

is one that understands the world around her. Children need to understand the engineering process and the results of these processes: the technologies, in order to

become fully literate in our complex, human-made world.

Engineering offers an excellent platform for project/problem-based learning. Children have opportunities to move from observing and formulating ideas to constructing projects and communicating about their work. This problem/project-based learning helps children integrate knowledge from all disciplines, including math, science,

social studies, English, and art.

Engineering motivates students to pursue math and science studies. Partnerships

among math, science and technology/engineering educators make for powerful teaching teams. Engineering brings math and science alive and creates links to everyday

life. This important relevance factor encourages girls in particular, who typically

chose profession that ‘‘make a difference,’’ to pursue careers in these male-dominated professions.

Engineering sharpens young people’s ability to visualize and think in three dimensions. Rather than exploring three-dimensional objects by building with models

or taking apart radios, most children watch television, play computer games, and

surf the Internet, building skills that sharpen eye-hand coordination in two dimensions. We are raising generations of people that cannot visualize things in three dimensions. By nurturing both spatial visualization and communication skills, engineering enhances children’s ability to design and present ideas in graphical form.

These skills improve students’ understanding of the technological world, and enable

them to become the problem-solvers and designers of tomorrow.

NSF has been very supportive of our effort to introduce engineering into the lives

of younger people. We currently are working at the State level with the Massachusetts Department of Education, with teachers through the professional associations,

with targeted school districts, and with children. Our initial prototype program was

a partnership between our School of Engineering and the Stow Schools of the

Nashoba Regional School District in Massachusetts. This effort was funded by two

different grants, from the Engineering Division, and the Human Resources division

of NSF. Our success in changing the science performance of the children within two

years is evident through the results of the statewide Science and Technology/Engineering tests at the fourth grade level. In 1998, 6 percent of the 4th grade students

scored ‘‘Advanced’’, 66 percent ‘‘Proficient’’, 27 percent ‘‘Needs Improvement, and 1

percent ‘‘Failed’’. In 2000, 31 percent scored ‘‘Advanced’’, 62 percent ‘‘Proficient, 7

percent ‘‘Needs Improvement’’, and 0 percent failed. The State averages in these categories stayed quite flat. The State averages for 2000 are 5 percent ‘‘Advanced’’, 37

percent ‘‘Proficient’’, 32 percent ‘‘Needs Improvement’’, and 26 percent Failed. Our

partnership worked well. Enhanced NSF funding in these areas, can help other university-school partnership achieve similar results.

We need enhanced funding for the University-School Partnerships program. We

also need to include Engineering in the National Mathematics and Science Education Partnerships. Engineering schools can energize teachers at all levels and significantly enhance math, science, and technology/engineering preK-12 literacy. As a

63

member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), I understand

they have endorsed partnerships as a method to improve K-12 Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics education. I encourage the committee to propose a

change to the name and charge of the Partnerships to ‘‘National Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Partnerships’’ and to propose a significant increase of the

funding of this NSF program. In addition, I encourage the committee to also support

full funding for Science, Math, and Engineering education at the Department of

Education as well. We have a unique opportunity to significantly enhance this important area of national interest. In closing, I feel that NSF budget increases will

move us in the right direction in enhancing basic research, promoting diverse representation in the field, and promoting technological literacy of the citizens of tomorrow.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WARREN WASHINGTON

Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Gregg, and Members of the Committee, I

appreciate having the opportunity to testify before you as Chair of the National

Science Board. I am Warren Washington, Senior Scientist and Section Head of the

Climate Change Research Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

On behalf of the National Science Board, I thank the Committee for its sustained

commitment to a broad portfolio of investments in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology research and education. These investments contribute to our

Nation’s long-term security and economic vitality and to the well being of all Americans.

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION’S BUDGET REQUEST

The National Science Board has approved and supports the National Science

Foundation’s budget request for fiscal year 2003. The 5 percent increase in funding

will allow NSF to continue to nurture the people, ideas, and tools needed to generate new knowledge and new technologies. Among the important initiatives that

this budget includes are priorities for the science and engineering workforce; mathematical and statistical science research that will advance interdisciplinary science

and engineering; and research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences to explore the complex interactions between technology and society. The budget continues

support for the Math and Science Partnership program; increases funding for the

Foundation’s six priority areas, which have the potential of enormous payoff for the

Nation; and provides a much-needed increase in annual stipends for graduate fellows—a critical investment the future U.S. science and engineering workforce. The

NSF Director, Dr. Rita Colwell, will discuss these and other specifics of the budget

request in her testimony.

As this Committee recognizes, NSF is a major contributor both to scientific research and science education. Federal investments in the basic sciences through

NSF have produced new discoveries and new technologies essential to our national

security and economic prosperity. In addition, NSF supports innovative education

programs from pre-kindergarten through graduate school, preparing the next generation of scientists and engineers and contributing to a more scientifically literate

workforce and society.

Each year NSF evaluates, primarily through external peer review, 32,000

proposais from 2,000 colleges, universities, and institutions. The value of the proposals is approximately $16 billion. NSF annually makes 10,000 awards, totaling nearly $3 billion, in a highly competitive merit review process. It is estimated that NSF

proposals representing an additional $5 billion are worthy of investment if the funds

were available.

THE HEALTH OF THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ENTERPRISE

The new knowledge and technologies emerging today are a tribute to Federal research investments made years ago in a spirit of bipartisanship. When those investments began, no one could foresee their future impact. Revolutionary advances such

as those in information technology, nanotechnology, materials, and biotechnology remind us that such breakthroughs with promising benefits to the economy, the workforce, our educational systems, and national security require long-term, high-risk investments.

Among Federal agencies, NSF has the unique mission of advancing the Nation’s

health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields

of science and engineering. NSF plays a critical role in supporting new discoveries

and knowledge as well as innovative educational programs at all levels. NSF-funded

64

research and education are critical to sustaining U.S. strength in science and technology, a key element of national security.

Despite widespread recognition of the benefits that result from federally-supported scientific research, as a Nation, we are seriously under-investing in basic research. In our $10 trillion Gross Domestic Product, the Federal Government budgets

$24 billion to basic research, which represents one-fourth of 1 percent of the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Of the $24 billion, NSF receives $3 billion to support

cutting-edge science and the search for new knowledge.

Achieving a balanced portfolio in the basic sciences is as important as the quality

and quantity of research funded. For example, as Congressional leaders and others

have pointed out, the success of the National Institutes of Health’s efforts to find

cures for deadly diseases depends heavily on the underpinning of basic research

supported by the National Science Foundation.

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD POLICY STUDIES

In addition to providing oversight to NSF, the Board provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of science and engineering policy. I would like

to mention some of our current activities related to major issues affecting the health

of the science and engineering enterprise.

FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

The level of Federal investment is crucial to the health of the science and engineering enterprise. Equally crucial is how effectively that investment is made. The

growing opportunities for discovery and the inevitable limits on Federal spending

mean that hard choices must be made and priorities set.

In its recent report, Federal Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities,

the Board offers its recommendations for a more effective budget process, including

an improved information base and a decision-making process for allocating Federal

funding to research. The Board’s conclusions are based on reviews of the literature

on budget coordination and priority setting for public research and invited presentations from and discussions with representatives of the Office of Management and

Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Federal research and development agencies, congressional staff, high-level science officials from foreign governments, experts on data and methodologies, and spokespersons from industry, the

National Academies, research communities, science policy community, and academe.

U.S. GOVERNMENT ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

In the 21St Century, advances in science and engineering will to a large measure

determine economic growth, quality of life, and the health and security of our planet. The conduct, communication, and use of science are intrinsically global. New

ideas and discoveries are emerging all over the world and the balance of expertise

is shifting among countries. Collaborations and international partnerships contribute to addressing a broad range of international problems. They also contribute to

building more stable relations among nations by creating a universal language and

culture based on commonly accepted values of objectivity, sharing, integrity, and

free inquiry. The Federal Government plays a significant role in promoting international science and engineering activities and supporting research with international dimensions.

In its recent report entitled Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S. Government

in Intemational Science and Engineering, the Board concludes that new approaches

to the management and coordination of U.S. international science and engineering

activities are needed if the United States is to maintain the long-term vitality of

its science and engineering enterprise and the vitality of its economy. The Board

recommends that the Federal Government: (1) increase the effectiveness of its coordination of international science and engineering activities; (2) increase international cooperation in fundamental research and education, particularly with developing countries and by younger scientists and engineers; and (3) improve the use

of science and engineering information in foreign policy deliberations and in dealing

with global issues and problems.

U.S. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE

An area of constant concern for NSF and the Board is the quality and adequacy

of infrastructure to enable scientific discoveries in the future. The rapidly changing

environment of new knowledge, new tools, and new information capabilities has created a demand for more complex and more costly facilities for scientific research.

65

A Board task force is assessing the current status, changing needs, and strategies

needed to ensure that the Nation will have the infrastructure to sustain cuttingedge science and engineering research. We expect to receive the task force’s preliminary findings this summer.

NATIONAL WORKFORCE POLICIES FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

For U.S. leadership in science and engineering, there is no more important issue

than the development of a skilled technical workforce. As a Nation, we are not attracting the numbers of science and engineering students our Nation needs to sustain its leadership. Nor are we successfully tapping all our domestic resources, especially under-represented minorities and women. The pool of potential science and

engineering students will increasingly reflect the growing diversity in the American

workforce and society.

A Board task force on workforce policies for science and engineering is reviewing

U.S. workforce needs, the role of foreign students and workers, and policy options

for ensuring an adequate science and engineering workforce for the future. We anticipate receiving the task force’s report by the end of this year.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to close my formal remarks. I thank the

Committee for its long-time support of the science community, especially the National Science Foundation, and for allowing me to comment on significant national

policy concerns, as well as on the Foundation’s budget request.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

INTRODUCTION

ASME International is a 125,000-member organization focused on technical, educational and research issues. ASME conducts one of the world’s largest technical

publishing operations, holds numerous technical conferences worldwide, and offers

hundreds of professional development courses each year. ASME sets internationally

recognized industrial and manufacturing codes and standards that enhance public

welfare and safety.

In a survey this year, ASME members ranked pre-college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education as our number one public policy priority. Another issue of importance to our members is the desire to increase the Federal investment in research and development, particularly in the physical sciences.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) plays a critical role in both of those priorities.

PRE-COLLEGE EDUCATION

The engineering community has long been concerned with the state of pre-college

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. To increase

student learning in these areas, and enable the United States to compete globally

with a strong, technologically literate workforce, we need to commit a significant

amount of resources for STEM education now.

The U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century warns, ‘‘The

harsh fact is that the U.S. need for the highest quality human capital in science,

mathematics, and engineering is not being met. We not only lack the homegrown

science, technology, and engineering professionals necessary to ensure national prosperity and security, but also the next generation of teachers of science and math

at the K-12 level. The Nation is on the verge of a downward spiral in which current

shortages will beget even more acute future shortages of high-quality professionals

and competent teachers.’’

According to the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), student science scores for grades 4 and 8 are flat and there has been a slight decline

in scores for grade 12 since the assessment was last administered in 1996. Furthermore, 84 percent of science teachers and 86 percent of mathematics teachers in

grades 5-8 did not major in science or mathematics. This report further underscores

the need for reform and investment in math and science education, particularly at

a time when our economy, national security and technological advances are heavily

dependent on the quality of our future workforce.

The National Science Foundation has funded a number of programs, which are

consistent with ASME’s pre-college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education policy. Specifically, we support programs that: increase

federally-funded research focused on STEM teaching and learning to cultivate the

most effective teaching methods; recruit, train, and retain qualified STEM teachers

to meet demand; foster partnerships among educational institutions, industry, and

66

non-profit organizations; encourage the adoption of curriculum standards that cultivate high student performance; the development of curricula that foster creativity,

experiential problem-solving and critical thinking, and, the development of assessments aligned with these standards and curricula; and, encourage women and minorities to pursue STEM coursework and careers.

The ASME Council on Education supports S.1262, by Senator Rockefeller, et al.

In particular, we support: (1) the inclusion of engineering departments as eligible

partners and technology teachers within the definition of math and science teachers;

(2) the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program to attract science, math and engineering

majors and professionals to teaching; (3) the Teacher Research Scholarship Program

to provide STEM related research experiences for teachers; and (4) efforts to attract

greater participation of women and minorities in STEM pre-college, undergraduate

and graduate coursework and eventually STEM careers.

UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION

During the next decade, the U.S. demand for scientists and engineers is expected

to increase at more than double the rate for all other occupations, according to the

National Science Board. The need for a scientifically literate population is essential

for our economy and our national security. Moreover, technology and the innovations it has spawned drive productivity gains and economic growth.

But today’s high school students are not performing well in math and science

overall, and a decreasing number of American students are pursuing degrees in

technical fields. America’s K-12 students score far below the best in the world on

domestic and international tests.

Senators Lieberman, Bond, Frist, Mikulski and Domenici introduced S.1549, ‘‘The

Technology Talent Act,’’ designed to increase the United States’ technically trained

workforce. It is imperative to develop a highly skilled workforce to maintain our national security and foster future economic growth.

This legislation encourages universities to partner with community colleges, industry organizations, professional societies and local schools to pave the way for students of all ages and backgrounds to further their interests in science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) coursework and career paths.

In October 2001, the deans of engineering and the deans of education from 50 universities met in concert to develop strategic collaborations to enhance K-12 teacher

preparation in STEM and to invigorate engineering education. Collaborations of this

type can and should be replicated by more universities and across all science, mathematics, engineering, and technological disciplines.

This bill will assist in the development and implementation of innovative approaches to increasing enrollments and graduates in key STEM degrees. Providing

incentives and rewards to educational institutions for increasing STEM enrollments

and graduates is an excellent approach to jumpstart that process, therefore the

Council supports enactment of S.1549.

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

The Council acknowledges the visionary leadership role that NSF has played in

guiding the Nation’s basic research and development activities. NSF has greatly

contributed to the technological superiority that the United States enjoys today. As

such, the Council strongly endorses the Foundation and its efforts to improve and

expand the innovative ideas, outstanding people, and cutting-edge tools that comprise the Nation’s technological and scientific infrastructure.

However, the decline in Federal R&D funding remains a major concern. ASME

members are particularly concerned over the widening gap between Federal funding

of life sciences and the physical sciences and engineering, and therefore support efforts to dramatically increase NSF funding. The Council strongly encourages members of the Committee to consider the following points during its deliberations: the

critical need for the Nation to increase its support for the R&D portfolio including

a viable component of pure science and engineering research; enhancing the integrity of the core research mission of the NSF in light of its new responsibilities; the

need for balance within NSF between its initiative-driven research and developing

and maintaining a healthy core effort; and, that the integrity and strength of NSF

must remain rooted in strict adherence to a rigorous peer-review process free from

earmarking.

The Council supports: (1) increasing the size and duration of NSF grants, which

will allow scientists and researchers to produce more results and spend less time

writing grants; (2) increasing graduate stipends, which will attract more undergraduates to pursue graduate degrees in science and engineering; and (3) increasing

67

funding for the NSF by 15 percent for fiscal years 2003-2005, (like H.R. 4664) thereby placing the NSF budget on a doubling track.

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94