U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–780PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

AN OVERVIEW OF 

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 15, 2018 

Serial No. 115–53 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

ROGER W. MARSHALL, Kansas 

NEAL P. DUNN, Florida 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

MARK TAKANO, California 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CHARLIE CRIST, Florida 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

March 15, 2018 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 6 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Witnesses: 

Dr. France Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

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

Dr. Maria T. Zuber, Chair, National Science Board 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 40 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. France Co ́rdova, Director, National Science Foundation ............................... 70 

Dr. Maria T. Zuber, Chair, National Science Board ............................................. 127 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Prepared statement submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 130 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF 

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019 

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 

An tvnttn'""'' Science 

Fisct~l Yem· 2019 

Witnesses 

Dr. France Cordova, Director, 

Dr. Maria T. Zuber, Science Board 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HEARING CHARTER 

March 15, 2018 

TO: Members, Committee on Science, Space. and Technology 

FROM: Majority Staff. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

SUBJECT: Full Committee Hearing: "An Overview of the National Science Foundation 

Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 20 19'' 

The Full Committee on Science, Space. and Technology will hold a hearing titled An 

Overview ofthe National Science Foundation Budget Proposalji>r Fiscal Year 2019 on 

Thursday. March 15. 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building. 

Hearing Purpose: 

The purpose of the hearing is to review the Administration's Fiscal Year 2019 (FYI9) 

budget proposal and funding priorities for the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

Witness List 

• Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation 

• Dr. Maria T. Zuber. Chair. National Science Board 

Staff Contact 

For questions related to the hearing, please contact Jennifer Wickre of the Majority Staff 

at 202-225-6371. 
4 

Chairman SMITH. Everybody got quiet very suddenly, but before 

that, this was a very happy crowd. 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to 

order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Committee at any time. 

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled ‘‘An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal 

Year 2019.’’ And I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Today, we welcome Dr. France Co ́rdova, the Director of the National Science Foundation, and Dr. Maria Zuber, Chair of the National Science Board, to testify about the Administration’s budget 

request and funding priorities for the National Science Foundation 

in fiscal year 2019. 

Before its creation in 1950, the NSF’s mission has been to promote fundamental scientific discovery. The NSF is the only federal 

agency that supports basic research across all scientific fields, including research in areas like national security, energy, quantum 

technology, biotechnology, STEM education and cybersecurity. 

Through competitive grants, the NSF funds more than 360,000 scientists, engineers, and students across the country. This helps 

make the United States a world leader in knowledge and innovation. 

The Committee finished the last Congress by completing work on 

the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, authorizing 

some of the NSF’s activities, including work on STEM education 

and high-performance computing. The law made permanent transparency and accountability policies that require the NSF to describe the research projects it funds in nontechnical terms. The law 

also improved the NSF grantmaking process, affirming that research funded through the merit review selection process must be 

in the national interest. 

I want to recognize Dr. Co ́rdova for the steps the NSF has taken 

to improve accountability over the last three years and acknowledge Dr. Zuber’s work on behalf of the National Science Board as 

well. 

I have to say that sometimes in the past I have been critical of 

the NSF for funding too many projects that seem marginal or frivolous. When the NSF spent $700,000 on a Climate Change Musical 

or $1.5 million to study pasture management in Mongolia, it reduced investments in projects that could yield groundbreaking new 

knowledge and discoveries. 

I believe there has certainly been improvement, but challenges 

remain. I am concerned that there are too many projects being 

funded in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences that are not 

worthy of taxpayers’ dollars. For example, in the past year the NSF 

has spent $310,000 to study Congressional ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ letters, $450,000 to study why there is no single English word for 

‘‘light blue,’’ $330,000 to study cell phone use by Tanzanian women, 

$138,000 to study monkey responses to ‘‘inequity and violated expectation,’’ $217,000 to document a language spoken in two villages 

of northern Pakistan, and $75,000 to ‘‘produce a description of 

Maku,’’ an extinct Amazon language. 

Social-behavioral science can help solve some complex problems 

that touch several areas of science. For instance, protecting com-
5 

puters and computer networks from hackers requires research in 

both computer and behavioral science. But when only one out of 

five requests for grants is being funded, there must be priorities. 

We cannot afford to misspend another dollar on low-priority or frivolous activities. Simply put, the NSF should fund useful research 

over the useless. 

China now has the world’s fastest supercomputer and has just 

passed the United States for the first time to lead the world in the 

number and total performance of supercomputers. China is also 

making rapid progress in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, human genome editing, and other crucial areas of science 

and technology. Unfortunately, as China leaps forward, the United 

States is slowing down investment in key areas of basic research 

like physics and computing. This will not change unless taxpayers’ 

money is better invested. 

I also am concerned about whether or not the NSF is developing 

its STEM workforce programs to meet the needs of our economy. 

The United States continues to lag significantly behind China and 

the European Union in science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, 

with China producing more than twice the number of STEM undergraduates. In the physical and biological sciences, China produces 

four times more undergraduates in those fields than the United 

States. 

The NSF plays a critical role in helping educate and train the 

next generation of STEM workers. We need to invest in young people who will go into fields where there is a national need and goodpaying jobs. 

Now that there is a two-year budget agreement in place, we have 

an opportunity to reauthorize the science agencies under our Committee’s jurisdiction, including the NSF, to rebalance priorities and 

ensure that our nation’s science agencies are on a trajectory to 

keep America at the forefront of scientific knowledge and discovery. 

This Committee has demonstrated that there is broad support for 

basic and fundamental research and STEM education. Twenty of 

the twenty-two bills the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

has brought to the House Floor this Congress have been bipartisan 

pieces of legislation. We are committed to maintaining America’s 

leadership in science, thereby ensuring future economic prosperity. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
6 

CDMMITT[[ Di'l 

SCIENCE, SPACE, & TECHNOLOGY Lamar Smith, Chairman 

For Immediate Release 

March 15,2018 

Media Contacts: Thea McDonald. Brandon VerVelde 

(202) 225-6371 

Statement by Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2019 

Chairman Smith: Today we welcome Dr. France Cordova, the director of the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) and Dr. Maria Zuber, chair of the National Science Board, to 

testify about the administration's budget request and funding priorities for the NSF in 

Fiscal Year 2019. 

Since its creation in 1950, the National Science Foundation's mission has been to 

promote fundamental scientific discovery. The NSF is the only federal agency that 

supports basic research across all scientific fields, including research in areas like 

national security, energy, quantum technology, biotechnology, STEM education and 

cybersecurity. 

Through competitive grants, the NSF funds more than 360,000 scientists, engineers and 

students across the country. which help make the United States a world leader in 

knowledge and innovation. 

The committee finished the last Congress by completing work on the American 

Innovation and Competitiveness Act, authorizing some of the NSF's activities- including 

work on STEM education and high-performance computing. 

The law made permanent transparency and accountability policies that require the 

NSF to describe the research projects it funds in non-technical terms. 

The law also improved the NSF grant-making process. affirming that research funded 

through the merit-review selection process must be in the national interest. 

I want to recognize Dr. Cordova for the steps the NSF has taken to improve 

accountability over the last three years. and acknowledge Dr. Zuber's work on behalf of 

the National Science Board as well. 

I have been critical of the NSF for funding too many projects that seem marginal or 

frivolous. When the NSF spent $700,000 on a Climate Change Musical or $1.5 million to 

study pasture management in Mongolia. it reduced investments in projects that could 

yield groundbreaking new knowledge and discoveries. 
7 

I believe there has been improvement but challenges remain. I am concerned that 

there are still too many projects being funded in the social, behavioral and economic 

sciences that are not worthy of taxpayers' dollars. 

In the past year the NSF has spent: 

• $310,000 to study congressional "Dear Colleague" letters 

• $450,000 to study why there is no single English word for "light blue" 

• $330,000 to study cell phone use by Tanzanian women 

• $138,000 to study monkey responses to "inequity and violated expectation" 

• $217,000 to document a language spoken in two villages of northern Pakistan 

• $75.000 to "produce a description of Maku," an extinct Amazon language 

Social-behavioral science can help solve some complex problems that touch several 

areas of science. For instance, protecting computers and computer networks from 

hackers requires research in both computer and behavioral science. 

But when only one out of five requests for grants is being funded, there must be 

priorities. We cannot afford to misspend another dollar on low-priority or frivolous 

activities. Simply put. the NSF should fund useful research over the useless. 

China now has the world's fastest supercomputer and has just passed the U.S. for the 

first time to lead the world in the number and total performance of supercomputers. 

China is also making rapid progress in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, 

human genome editing and other crucial areas of science and technology. 

Unfortunately, as China leaps forward, the U.S. is slowing down investment in key areas 

of basic research like physics and computing. This will not change unless taxpayers' 

money is better invested. 

I am also concerned about whether or not the NSF is developing its STEM workforce 

programs to meet the needs of our economy. 

The United States continues to lag significantly behind China and the European Union in 

science and engineering bachelor's degrees, with China producing more than twice 

the number of STEM undergraduates. In the physical and biological sciences, China 

produces four times more undergraduates in those fields than the U.S. 

The NSF plays a critical role in helping educate and train the next generation of STEM 

workers. We need to invest in young people who will go into fields where there is a 

national need and good paying jobs. 

Now that there is a two-year budget agreement in place, we have an opportunity to 

reauthorize the science agencies under our committee's jurisdiction, including the NSF, 

to rebalance priorities and ensure that our nation's science agencies are on a 

trajectory to keep America at the forefront of scientific knowledge and discovery. 
8 

This committee has demonstrated there is broad support for basic and fundamental 

research and STEM education. Twenty of the 22 bills the Science, Space. and 

Technology Committee has brought to the House floor this Congress have been 

bipartisan pieces of legislation. 

We are committed to maintaining America's leadership in science, thereby ensuring 

future economic prosperity. 

### 
9 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is 

recognized for her opening statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, and good 

morning. I appreciate you holding this hearing, and I want to welcome Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Zuber. I’m pleased that we have both 

of you here this morning to help us understand the fiscal 2019 

budget request for the National Science Foundation and the potential impact of this request on NSF’s ability to help support U.S. 

leadership in science. 

Funding for the National Science Foundation peaked in 2010 at $7.7 billion. In the years since then, the budget has stagnated at 

or below $7.5 billion. This is the case despite the Obama Administration requesting increases each year. In stark contrast, last year, 

the Trump Administration proposed to cut NSF by 11 percent, and 

this year, until Congress passed the budget agreement, the proposed cut was closer to 30 percent. This Administration has demonstrated time and again how little they value science. 

Given these trends, most of us are relieved when the NSF budget 

remains flat rather than cut. However, flat is a decline in real dollars, and it represents a terribly low standard for which to judge 

our nation’s standing in science and technology. We will hear in Dr. 

Zuber’s testimony how other countries are doubling down on their 

investments in R&D while we’re cutting. 

Having said that, I applaud Dr. Co ́rdova and your team at NSF 

for being as bold and forward-looking as you could be, given the 

constraints imposed upon you by the budget of the White House. 

I will highlight just a few items of interest or concern that I hope 

we can discuss further in the hearing. 

Advancing science to solve our national and global challenges increasingly depends on teams of scientists from various disciplines 

coming together in what is now commonly known as convergent research. However, for generations, universities and the National 

Science Foundation itself have been organized around disciplines. 

While advances in these core disciplines do and must continue, this 

organizational structure has created stovepipes and inhibited convergent research. 

In fiscal year 2019 budget request, NSF takes a big leap to transcend those traditional boundaries through dedicated funding for 

its 10 Big Ideas. In that respect, this is an exciting budget proposal. However, having been forced into a zero-sum choice, the 

agency had to make cuts elsewhere, namely to the core research 

programs and to education and training programs at all levels. 

These tradeoffs merit further discussion before we can be comfortable that the benefits outweigh the potential harm. 

This budget also represents the first time that the agency is singling out one of its research directorates for a disproportionate cut 

while every other directorate is nearly flat. The Social, Behavioral, 

and Economic Sciences Directorate, or the SBE, would be cut by 11 

percent. I do not doubt this steep cut was dictated from the White 

House. However, this ongoing devaluing of the role of SBE in meeting our national challenges could have damaging consequences. I 

look forward to hearing from Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Zuber on what 

steps NSF will take to mitigate this harm. 
10 

I’m pleased to see the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for 

Science, or AIMS, project in the request, along with a proposal for 

a midscale research infrastructure program. I look forward to hearing more about both of these proposals. 

Finally, as I alluded to earlier, while there are a few bright spots 

in education and broadening participation funding, I am concerned 

about the overall cuts to education in this budget. Education and 

training programs across research account—would be cut by nearly 

25 percent. Proven programs such as Noyce Teacher Scholarship 

Program, research experiences for undergraduates, and the graduate research fellowships would all receive steep cuts. NSF has a 

dual mission of research and education. We cannot afford to back 

away from our commitment to either one. 

I thank you, Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Zuber, for being here this 

morning to help us examine these issues and concerns in more detail. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing, 

and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
11 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) 

House Committee on Science, Space. and Technology 

"An Overview of/he National Science Foundation Budget Proposal/or FY 2019" 

March IS. 2018 

Thank you Chairman Smith for holding this hearing. and welcome back Dr. Cordova and Dr. 

Zuber. I am pleased that we have both of you here this moming to help us understand the Fiscal 

Year 2019 budget request for the National Science Foundation and the potential impact of this 

request on NSF's ability to help support U.S. leadership in science. 

Funding for NSF peaked in 20 I 0 at $7.7 billion. In the years since then, the budget has stagnated 

at or below $7.5 billion. That is the case despite the Obama Administration requesting increases 

every year. In stark contrast. last year. the Trump Administration proposed to cut NSF by I I 

percent. And this year. until Congress passed the budget agreement, the proposed cut was closer 

to 30 percent. This Administration has demonstrated time and again how little they value 

sc1ence. 

Given these trends. most of us are relieved when the NSF budget remains flat rather than cut. 

However. flat is a decline in real dollars. and it represents a terribly low standard by which to 

judge our nation's standing in science and technology. We will hear in Dr. Zuber's testimony 

how other countries are doubling-down on their investments in R&D while we just cut. 

Having said that. I applaud Dr. Cordova and your team at NSF for being as bold and forwardlooking as you could be given the constraints imposed upon your budget by the White House. I 

will highlight just a few items of interest or concern that I hope we can discuss further in this 

hearing. 

Advancing science to solve our national and global challenges increasingly depends on teams of 

scientists from different disciplines coming together in what is now commonly known as 

convergent research. Ilowever. for generations. universities and the National Science Foundation 

itself have been organized around disciplines. While advances in these core disciplines do and 

must continue, this organizational structure has created stovepipes and inhibited convergent 

research. In the FY 2019 budget request, NSF takes a big leap to transcend those traditional 

boundaries through dedicated funding for its I 0 Big Ideas. In that respect. this is an exciting 

budget proposal. However. having been torced into a zero-sum choice. the agency had to make 

cuts elsewhere. namely to the core research programs and to education and training programs at 

all levels. These trade-on:~ merit further discussion before we can be comfortable that the 

benefits outweigh the potential harm. 

This budget also represents the first time that the agency is singling out one of its research 

directorates for a disproportionate cut. While every other directorate is nearly flat, the Social. 

Behavioral. and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) would be cut by I 1 percent. I do not 

doubt this steep cut was dictated from the White House. However. this ongoing devaluing of the 

role of SBE in meeting our national challenges could have damaging consequences. I look 

forward to hearing from Dr. Cordova and Dr. Zuber on what steps NSF will take to mitigate this 

harm. 
12 

I am pleased to see the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for Science or AIMS- project 

in the request. along with the proposal for a mid-scale research infrastructure program. I look 

forward to hearing more about both of these proposals. 

Finally. as I alluded to earlier. while there are a few bright spots in education and broadening 

participation funding. I am concerned about the overall cuts to education in this budget. 

Education and training programs across the Research account would be cut by nearly 25 percent. 

Proven programs such as the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. Research Experiences for 

Undergraduates, and the Graduate Research Fellowships would all receive steep cuts. NSF has a 

dual mission of research and education. We cannot afford to back away from our commitment to 

either. 

I thank Dr. Cordova and Dr. Zuber for being here this morning to help us examine these issues 

and concerns in more detaiL and I again thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing. I 

yield back. 
13 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Our first witness today is Dr. France Co ́rdova, Director of the 

National Science Foundation. Dr. Co ́rdova was sworn in as Director 

of the NSF in March 2014. She previously served as President of 

Purdue University from 2007 to 2012. From 1993 to 1996, Dr. 

Co ́rdova served as the Chief Scientist at NASA, and she is the recipient of NASA’s highest honor, the Distinguished Service Medal. 

Dr. Co ́rdova has a Bachelor of Arts from Stanford University and 

a Ph.D. in physics from the California Institute of Technology. 

Joining Director Co ́rdova today to assist in answering technical 

questions is Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Acting Chief Operating Officer of the National Science Foundation. Previously, she led the 

NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate and co-chaired 

the White House National Science and Technology Council’s Federal Coordination and STEM Education Task Force. Prior to the 

NSF, she was a Distinguished Professor of Mathematics Education 

at Michigan State University. Dr. Derrini-Mundi holds a Ph.D. in 

mathematics education from the University of New Hampshire. 

Our second witness today is Dr. Maria Zuber, Chair of the National Science Board. In 2013, Dr. Zuber was appointed Vice President for Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

where she oversees more than a dozen research laboratories and 

centers. Dr. Zuber was awarded the NASA Distinguished Public 

Service Medal in 2004, and in 2008, she was named to the U.S. 

News’ list of ‘‘America’s Best Leaders.’’ 

She received a Bachelor of Arts in astronomy from the University 

of Pennsylvania, as well as a Master of Science and Ph.D. both in 

geophysics from Brown University. 

We welcome you all and look forward to your testimony. And Dr. 

Co ́rdova, if you’ll begin. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. FRANCE CO ́ RDOVA, 

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Johnson, and Members of the Committee. I’m pleased to be here 

today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request for 

the National Science Foundation. 

The request is $7.47 billion, level with the fiscal year 2017 appropriation. This level of funding reflects the Administration’s commitment to NSF’s role in strengthening the Nation’s economy, national 

security, and global leadership in sciences and engineering. 

NSF funds basic research that advances and sustains American 

preeminence in the innovation economy. NSF accounts for approximately 27 percent of the total federal budget for basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities. For computer science, that 

number is 83 percent. For biology, 69 percent, for engineering, 46 

percent. These investments produce invaluable benefits to our nation and the world. 

Economists have noted that over 50 percent of America’s economic growth over the past 50 years is attributable to technological 

innovation. Much of it is the fruit of the uniquely American research and innovation ecosystem among academia, industry, and 

government where ideas, artifacts, and people flow among these 

sectors. In information technology, this is embodied in this tire- 
14 

tracks diagram. This extraordinary ecosystem has given rise to 

multibillion-dollar industries, and it all begins, as the diagram 

shows, with investment in fundamental long-term research often 

made with federal dollars and often made many years, even decades before it evolved into billion-dollar businesses. 

MRI technology, gene editing, barcode technology, Google, 3–D 

printing, these are all areas NSF invested in early that have transformed our lives. Today, NSF is at the forefront of research in big 

data, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and 

robotics areas that will power the future economy. 

Our fiscal year 2019 request also incorporates new and innovative ways of doing business that will position NSF at the leading 

edge of discovery. First, NSF will invest in our 10 Big Ideas. The 

Big Ideas represent unique opportunities to position our nation at 

the frontiers, indeed to define the frontiers of global science and engineering leadership. An investment of $30 million is requested for 

each of the six research-focused Big Ideas. Four other Big Ideas 

such as midscale facilities and the INCLUDES initiative focused on 

new approaches to increase opportunities for discovery and expand 

the STEM community. 

Our success also requires innovative approaches to leveraging resources over all fields of science. In fiscal year 2019, NSF will initiate two convergence accelerators, new centers that will converge 

around important national challenges requiring interdisciplinary 

expertise. The accelerators will streamline operations and collaborations, focusing on results and outcomes that can be achieved 

quickly. An investment of $60 million will support two convergence accelerators for two of the Big Ideas: Harnessing the Data Revolution 

for 21st-Century Science and Engineering and the Future of Work 

at the Human-Technology Frontier. These Big Ideas were chosen 

because of the readiness for convergent and translational research. We expect to catalyze an additional $40 million in investment by 

external partners, including the private sector, other federal agencies, and international funders. 

Equally important to our sustained global leadership in science 

and engineering are investments in STEM education. At NSF our 

education activities are integrated with research. In fiscal year 

2019, NSF will continue to invest in CyberCorps, Computer Science 

for All, the Advanced Technological Education program, and other 

initiatives that support teachers, students, and researchers from 

K–2 to lifelong learning environments. We will not have the discoveries of tomorrow without a skilled workforce prepared for tomorrow. 

Mr. Chairman, I had the honor of attending the 2017 Nobel Prize 

awards ceremony in Stockholm, Sweden. I was there to celebrate 

scientists in the fields of physics, economics, biology, and chemistry. All eight U.S. Nobelists were at some point in their careers 

supported by NSF. Three of them were honored for the LIGO discovery of gravitational waves, a discovery only made possible by 40 

years of NSF support. In fact, NSF-funded researchers account for 

231 Nobel Prizes, dating back to 1955. This is but one powerful example of why Congress’ support for NSF and fundamental basic research is so vital. 
15 

Another is in the tire-tracks diagram, which exhibits some of 

NSF’s contributions to the growth of new robust businesses. This 

Committee has played an important role in these successes. 

Through the AICA, it continues to make our agency stronger in its 

processes to deliver the best to the American people. Thank you for 

your continued support of NSF. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Co ́rdova follows:] 
16 

Dr. France Cordova 

Director 

National Science Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2019" 

March 15, 2018 

Introduction 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson. and Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to 

be here with you today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request for the 

National Science Foundation (NSF). 

Established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 {P.L. 81-507). NSF is an independent 

Federal agency whose mission is "to promote the progress of science: to advance the national 

health. prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense: and for other purposes." NSF is 

unique in carrying out its mission by supporting fundamental research across all tields of science. 

technology. engineering and mathematics (STEM) and all levels of STEM education. NSF is also 

committed to the development of a future-focused science and engineering workforce that draws 

on the talents of all Americans. NSF accounts for approximately 27 percent of the total Federal 

budget for basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities and has been vital to many 

discoveries that impact our daily lives and drive the economy. NSF seeks to be a respected steward 

of taxpayer dollars. operating with integrity. openness, and transparency. 

A vibrant scientific workforce and breakthrough discoveries enabled by NSF investments sustain, 

accelerate, and transfonn America's globally preeminent innovation ecosystem. For example, last 

year, eight American scientists were awarded Nobel prizes in the fields of physics, economics. 

biology and chemistry. All eight of those world-class researchers were. at some point in their 

careers. supported by NSF. In fact, since the 1950's only shortly after NSF's creation- NSF has 

funded more than 230 Nobel laureates. Last year's awardees included the Laser Interferometer 

Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) scientists who in 2015 detected gravitational waves 

first predicted by Albert Einstein a century ago - and opened a new and exciting chapter in 

astrophysics. Their work will enable new commercial applications and countless new discoveries. 
17 

Notably. LIGO represents a 40-year investment by the NSF and speaks to the importance of our 

ability to invest in high-risk. high-reward research and facilities that allow scientists to explore the 

frontiers of science. 

The complex global and domestic challenges facing the Nation today require NSF investments. 

Federal investment in basic research and the STEM workforce. led by NSF. is vital to the Nation's 

continued global leadership. Other nations continue to increase their support of research, 

development. and STEM education. as they innovate in next-generation technologies. China and 

the European Union have invested significantly in quantum technology. and continue to invest 

billions of dollars in artificial intelligence research with an eye to a future of global leadership in 

these areas. There is unprecedented global competition for highly skilled. technical workers who 

will lead tomorrow's innovations. Continued U.S. support for basic research has never been more 

vital for the Nation and for the world. 

The President's FY 2019 Budget Request is steady with what Congress enacted for FY 2017. 

While the funding level is the same as FY 2017, the content differs some since this budget reflects 

Administration priorities. With this level of funding. NSF will be able to support basic research 

across all fields of science and engineering that create knowledge while allowing us to invest in 

priority areas I ike: 

o Advancing NSF's Big Ideas- bold questions that will drive NSF's long-term 

research agenda: 

o Accelerating focused. cross-disciplinary efforts that will have impact in a short 

time11·ame around two of the Big Ideas: Harnessing the Data Revolution for 21stCentury Science and Engineering: and the Future of Work at the HumanTechnology Frontier. 

o Initiating the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for Science project; and 

o Building two Regional Class Research Vessels. a major component in the plan for 

modernizing the U.S. Academic Research Fleet. 

In a world of converging disciplines and interdependencies among fields of research. NSF is 

making changes to our funding structure that will allow us to leverage resources and the science 

we fund. Increasingly. collaboration and convergence are necessary to achieving our mission. 

especially in a world of t1at budgets. The Big Ideas and the Convergence Accelerators that we are 

prioritizing in the FY 2019 Budget Request are prime examples of funding across disciplines. We 

must leverage the science across all fields of NSF research to remain at the frontiers of science and 

engineering. 

The President's Fiscal Year 2019 Bndget Request 

The FY 2019 Budget Request for the National Science Foundation is $7.47 billion. the same as 

the final funding for FY 2017. This level of funding reflects the Administration's commitment to 

NSF's role in strengthening the Nation's economy. national security. and global leadership. while 

also restraining non-defense spending across the government. NSF funds the basic research that 

advances cybersecurity. infrastructure. manufacturing. and military technology. and sustains 

American preeminence in innovation. NSF also makes critical investments in STEM education 

that prepare the Nation's future-focused workforce. At NSF, because our education activities are 

integrated with science and engineering. research and innovation. we recognize that combining the 

2 
18 

best that we know from research about learning and cognition with exciting opportunities to learn 

STEM is a winning combination for helping to effectively inspire the next generation STEM 

skilled workforce. In FY 2019, NSF would expect to evaluate approximately 50,600 proposals 

through its competitive merit review process and make approximately 11,100 new competitive 

awards. NSF expects that over 93 percent of its FY 20 19 requested budget would be used to fund 

research and education grants and research infrastructure in the science and education 

communities. 

NSF has made a strong commitment to agency-supported research infrastructure. NSF plans to 

invest in the Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for Science (AIMS) project a necessity for 

maintaining U.S. scientific and geopolitical eminence across the continent of Antarctica. The 

AIMS project is the primary component of the McMurdo Station Master Plan. with a specific focus 

on the core elements of this critical logistics hub following the recommendations in a 2012 Blue 

Ribbon Panel report. The project is funded in the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account 

as the first stage of a long-term capital plan for all of NSF's Antarctic assets. It is feasible for the 

Oftice of Polar Programs to manage AIMS from R&RA since the program is unique in having noyear R&RA authority. All ofNSF's current oversight requirements for major facility construction 

projects will apply to the AIMS project. as McMurdo Station is considered a "major facility" under 

the definitions contained in the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act. 

The agency will begin support tor rigorously-reviewed Mid-Scale Research Infrastructure, an 

effort that will address a gap between small existing research infrastructure instrumentation and 

existing large facility funding. Using funds in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

Construction (MREFC) account. NSF will fund the construction of two Regional Class Research 

Vessels, pivotal components in the modernization of the academic research fleet that helps 

scientists to understand numerous ocean processes along our coasts. Scientific infrastructure has 

long been a cornerstone of NSF-funded research across the Nation. and the FY 2019 Budget 

Request enables further such investment. 

Complementing NSF's commitment to inth!structure is the agency's constant pursuit of 

innovation. In FY 2019. NSF will invest heavily in its I 0 Big Ideas. research agendas that identify 

areas at the fl·ontiers of science and engineering which promise to be among the most 

trans formative in the coming decades. NSF will also initiate two Convergence Accelerators. which 

are new organizational structures that will leverage external partnerships for convergence science 

to produce results and outcomes in an accelerated timefi·ame. with streamlined operations that 

allow for nimbleness and mid-course adjustments to support the most innovative science. NSF's 

support for the Big Ideas and the Convergence Accelerators reflects the agency's ongoing 

commitment to advancing science at the frontiers, while supporting the core fundamental research 

that has advanced the Nation since the agency's founding. Collaboration and convergence are 

required across NSF to achieve the agency's mission and support the maximum number of 

researchers. No longer is any one research directorate the sole NSF funder of all science in a given 

field. Science and engineering today requires innovative approaches to leveraging resources 

across all fields of science. 

NSF is essential to advancing American leadership in science and technology. NSF investments 

in all 50 states of the Union and all U.S. territories have resulted in both short- and long-term 

innovation and the robust creation of jobs. Over 50 percent of America's economic grovv1h of the 
19 

past 50 years is attributable to technological innovation. This innovation depends on significant 

investment in basic research. NSF had a role in the development of important advances such as 

the Internet. 3-D printing. and cell phones. and in responding to national and international crises. 

including the Ebola and Zika outbreaks, the Deepwater Horizon oil spilL Hurricane Katrina. and 

more recently, Hurricanes Harvey. Irma, and Maria. 

NSF awarded $16.5 million in 192 grants after recent natural disasters to help quickly mobilize 

resources to aid in relief efforts. and to help understand how to better protect human lives, 

infrastructure. and resources during these crises. These awards helped scientists understand how 

best to respond to disasters in the future and how to provide immediate assistance when people 

need it most. NSF investments in disaster research have advanced understanding of the paths of 

tropical cyclones. improved water decontamination. deployed underwater rescue robots. and 

helped to understand the long-term psychological and emotional effects of disasters. For example. 

after hurricanes Harvey and Irma hit. researchers quickly used the NSF-funded Stampede2 

supercomputer to create useful computer models that showed the likely depth and location of water 

in different regions, which helped first responders navigate flooded areas and allowed them to 

reach those most in need of assistance. Other researchers are studying the short- and long-term 

etTects of extreme t1ooding in urban areas to understand the spread of diseases after floods. 

Finally, NSF remains committed to investing in the basic research that helps the U.S. military both 

on and otT the battlefield. This includes innovative military technologies to support those on the 

front lines. Years ofNSF-funded research allowed the creation of the Worldwide-Integrated Crisis 

Early Warning System, >vhich has helped the military predict where contlict is likely to break out, 

and how best to mitigate a potential crisis. NSF funding developed Hemogrip, a biopolymer foam 

that expands in a wound to minimize blood loss and save lives on the battlefield. NSF investments 

also work to improve the lives of veterans as they readjust to civilian life. NSF-funded research 

has created better prosthetics and improved screening and treatment of post-traumatic stress 

disorder, depression, and other issues aftlicting America's veterans. 

These priority funding areas, for which additional details are provided below, will help ensure that 

NSF and the Nation remain global leaders in innovation. The support of Congress has been, and 

will continue to be, vital to NSF's ability to continue innovating and pushing the boundaries of 

science. 

NSF's Big Ideas 

In 2016, NSF announced a set of bold questions that will drive the agency's long-term research 

agenda- questions that will ensure future generations continue to reap the benel1ts of fundamental 

research. These I 0 ''Big Ideas," supported in the FY 20 I 9 Budget Request. aim to capitalize on 

what NSF does best: catalyze interest and investment in f\.tndamental research, which is the basis 

for discovery. invention, and innovation, along with education. The Big Ideas define a set of 

cutting-edge research agendas and processes that are suited tor NSF's broad portfolio of 

investments, and will require collahorations with industry, private foundations, other agencies. 

science academies and societies. and universities. They will provide platforms to bring together 

every field of study, from science and education. to engineering and astrophysics, to radically alter 

the conduct of science and engineering across the scientific enterprise in a manner that is not 

possible by simply continuing discipline-specific efforts at current levels. The Big Ideas represent 

unique opportunities to position our Nation at the frontiers-indeed to de tine the frontiers-of 

4 
20 

global science and engineering leadership and to invest in fundamental research that advances 

America's economic competitiveness and security, 

About the Big Ideas: 

Six of the Big Ideas focus on research, building on a foundation made possible by earlier 

investments in fundamental research, Four of the Big Ideas focus on process, and address NSF 

practices that could be altered or enhanced to capture the best research and to expand the Nation's 

science and engineering community. 

Research Big Ideas: 

• Harnessing the Data Revolution for 21st-Century Science and Engineering: 

Engaging NSF's research community in the pursuit of fundamental research in data 

science and engineering, the development of a cohesive, federated. national-scale 

approach to research data infrastructure. and the development of a 21st-century datacapable workforce. 

• The Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier: Catalyzing interdisciplinary 

science and engineering research to understand and build the human-technology 

relationship: design new technologies to augment human performance; illuminate the 

emerging socio-technologicallandscape: and foster lifelong and pervasive learning with 

technology. 

• Windows on the Universe: The Era of Multi-Messenger Astrophysics: Using 

powerful new syntheses of observational approaches to provide unique insights into the 

nature and behavior of matter and energy and to answer some of the most profound 

questions before humankind. 

• The Quautum Leap: Leading the Next Quantum Revolution: Exploiting quantum 

mechanics to observe. manipulate. and control the behavior of particles and energy at 

atomic and subatomic scales; and developing next-generation quantum-enabled science 

and technology for sensing. information processing, communicating. and computing. 

• Understanding the Rules of Life: Predicting Phenotype: Elucidating the sets of rules 

that predict an organism's observable characteristics, i.e., its phenotype. 

• Navigating the New Arctic: Establishing an observing network of mobile and fixed 

platforms and tools across the Arctic to document and understand the Arctic's rapid 

biological. physical. chemical, and social changes. 

Process Big Ideas: 

• NSF INCLUDES: Transforming education and career pathways to help broaden 

participation in science and engineering. 

• Growing Convergence Research at NSF: Merging ideas, approaches. tools. and 

technologies from widely diverse tlelds of science and engineering to stimulate discovery 

and innovation. 

• Mid-scale Research Infrastructure: Developing an agile process for funding 

experimental research capabilities in the mid-scale range. spanning the gap in research 

infrastructure between the $4 million cap on NSF's Major Research Instrumentation 

program and the $70 million lower bound for projects supported by NSF's Major 

Research Equipment and Facilities Construction accounl. This is a "sweet spot" tor 

5 
21 

science and engineering that has been challenging to fund through traditional NSF 

programs. 

• NSF 2026 Fund: Stimulating and seeding investments in bold foundational research 

questions that are large in scope. innovative in character. originate outside of any 

patticular NSF directorate, and may require a long-term commitment. This Big Idea is 

framed around the year 2026. providing an opportunity for transformative research to 

mark the Nation's 250th anniversary. 

Big Ideas S!ewardship Funding .Hodel: 

The fundamental research underlying the Big Ideas has been supported through many NSF 

programs for several years. and in some cases, for decades. The FY 2019 Budget Request will 

accelerate NSF's progress on the Big Ideas through the following funding models. 

In FY 2019, an investment of$30.0 million is requested for each of the six research Big Ideas. for 

a total of$180.0 million. This is in addition to the significant investments already being made by 

individual NSF directorates and offices in these areas. This additional investment for each of the 

Big Ideas will support convergent research that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries of 

individual NSF directorates and oftlces. The research directions for each Big Idea will be overseen 

and managed collaboratively by a multi-directorate/oftice leadership team. Budget management 

and reporting will be the responsibility of the directorate to which the $30.0 million is assigned for 

a given Big Idea, with the multi-directorate/office leadership providing oversight. 

The process Big Ideas are also emphasized in this Budget Request: 

• NSF INCLUDES will establish the NSF INCLUDES Alliances. as NSF begins to move 

the NSF INCLUDES program to national-scale collaborations. 

• NSF 2026 will initiate mechanisms to catalyze new research areas that may become 

future research Big Ideas. 

• Growing Convergence Research at NSF will suppmt research projects that span not only 

the Big Ideas but also new ideas. as NSF continues to break down barriers. 

• An increased investment in mid-scale research infrastructure will be used to continue to 

span the midscale gap noted above. 

Agency Reform 

The landscape in which NSF executes its miSSion is constantly evolving. Today's research 

questions are increasingly interdisciplinary in nature, requiring new levels and forms of scientific 

and engineering collaboration. At the same time, the Nation is addressing pressing challenges, 

including maintaining the security ofcybcr systems and physical infrastructure. building resiliency 

to disasters, improving Americans' health and quality of life, educating and inspiring the nextgeneration workforce, and growing American jobs and economic productivity. To continue to 

achieve its mission. NSF must therefore adapt to this evolving environment. 

In support of this adaptation, and in alignment with NSF's history of continued organizational 

improvement and the Administration's govemment-wide agency reform activities, NSF will focus 

reforms in five areas in FY 2019. 

6 
22 

Conwrgence Aece/erators: 

The Convergence Accelerators are new structures that represent an evolution from how funding 

for research has been organized at NSF. The Convergence Accelerators will be time-limited 

structural entities intended to leverage external partnerships to facilitate convergent and 

translational activities in areas of national importance. An investment of$60.0 million in FY 20 !9 

will supp01t two Convergence Accelerators pursuant to two of NSF's Big Ideas: Hamessing the 

Data Revolution for 2! st-Century Science and Engineering; and the Future of Work at the HumanTechnology Frontier. These Big Ideas were selected for the initial Convergence Accelerators 

because of their readiness for convergent and translational research. The $60.0 million investment 

is expected to catalyze an additional $40.0 million in investment by external partners. including 

the private sector, other federal agencies. and international funders. The Convergence Accelerators 

will be launched through NSF's Office of Integrative Activities. Funding for the Convergence 

Accelerators will be separate from, and in addition to. the funding for the Big Ideas. 

lv!ake information technology· (!T! work tor us: 

For NSF to continue funding cutting-edge science and engineering, leading-edge IT solutions that 

can adapt easily and quickly are essential. NSF will work to ensure that IT tools enhance employee 

productivity and satisfaction by enabling access. through easy-to-use interfaces. to reliable. readily 

available, and fully integrated data to support decision making. For example, NSF will continue 

efforts started under its Proposal Management Efficiency activity to automate proposal processing 

and improve mission-critical systems in ways that reduce workload. increase operational 

efficiency. and serve our clients more effectively. 

In FY 2019, NSF will invest an additional $4.0 million in adoption of automated, intelligent tools 

that enable evolution of NSF's business processes, including its core business process of merit 

review; and accelerated modernization ofNSF's IT infrastructure via adoption of cloud offerings. 

consolidated computing platforms, software-defined network infrastructure, and automated 

change management processes to improve overall resilience of NSF's systems. 

Align NSF's workforce and work: 

As the Nation's research enterprise evolves and NSF's proposal volume grows, the agency's 

workforce stands to benefit from enhanced capabilities that advance day-to-day business processes 

and enable the best service to the scientific community. In parallel with the IT-enabled business 

process improvements described above, NSF will optimize the alignment of staffing and position 

descriptions with the changing landscape. NSF will maintain its already lean workforce through 

continuous improvements in personnel training and utilization. and through effective performance 

management. 

Expand public and private partnerships: 

Private industry, foundations. and non-profits, together with other federal agencies and 

international funding organizations, bring additional expertise. resources. and capacity to NSFfunded research. which can accelerate discovery and translation of research to products and 

services that benefit society and grow the American economy. NSF will increase efficiencies in 

developing, implementing, and managing partnerships that maximize the scientific. economic. and 

societal impacts of its investments. In pmiicular, NSF will revise policies to enhance partnership 

development including implementing new and innovative models with external organizations in 

7 
23 

science and engineering areas ripe for leverage. NSF will also explore additional partnerships with 

the private sector. philanthropies. and other federal agencies. 

Streamline. standardize. and simpliti' programs and processes: 

Many NSF business processes are managed and executed locally within the agency's directorates 

and offices. posing efficiency and collaboration challenges. NSF will revise policies and business 

processes to increase standardization across NSF organizations and eliminate unnecessary 

complexity. There are significant opportunities for improvement relating to the merit-review 

process, NSF's core business process. and expanded use of shared services for business operations. 

NSF-Wide Investments 

NSF continues to bring together researchers from all fields of science and engineering to address 

today's cross-disciplinary questions and challenges through Foundation-wide activities. In FY 

2019, NSF will support tour continuing cross-Foundation investments. 

Innovations at the Nexus o[Food. Energv, and Water Svstems (L'VFEWS) 

$16.4 million is requested in FY 2019 for INFEWS. which aims to understand, design. and model 

the interconnected food. energy, and water system through an interdisciplinary research effort that 

incorporates all areas of science and engineering and addresses the natural, social, and humanbuilt factors involved. INFEWS is the first program to study the interconnected food-energy-water 

nexus. This program is driven by pressing needs and challenges, such as growing U.S. and global 

populations, changes in land use, and increasing geographic and seasonal variability in 

precipitation patterns. all of which are placing an ever-increasing stress on these critical resources. 

NSF lnnomtion Corps (!-Corps TMJ 

$30.0 million is requested for the 1-CorpsT" program. which improves NSF-funded researchers· 

access to resources that can assist in bridging the gap between discoveries and technologies, 

helping to transfer knowledge to downstream technological applications and use at scale. In FY 

2019. NSF will continue to support 1-Corpsn• Nodes and 1-CorpsT" Sites to further build, utilize. 

and sustain a national innovation ecosystem that helps researchers effectively identify viable 

market opportunities and augments the development of technologies, products. and processes that 

benefit the Nation. NSF will also continue to support 1-CorpsT" Teams that are provided access to 

experiential entrepreneurial education and mcntoring in order to determine the readiness to 

commercialize technologies resulting from NSF-funded research. 

The Secure and Trustworthv C'vherspace iSaTC! 

$129.0 million is requested for SaTC. This investment aims to build the knowledge base in 

cybersecurity that enables discovery, learning. and innovation, and leads to a more secure and 

trustworthy cyberspace. Through a focus on long-term. foundational research, SaTC will develop 

the scientific foundations for cybersecurity research for years to come. SaTC also focuses on the 

training of the next generation cybersecurity workl()rce. especially for government. This program 

aligns NSF's cybersecurity investments with the national cybersecurity strategy. 

8 
24 

Understanding the Brain (UtE! 

$127.2 million is requested for this important initiative, which encompasses ongoing cognitive 

science and neuroscience research and NSF's contributions to the ongoing Brain Research through 

Advancing Innovation and Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative. The goal of UtB is to enable 

scientific understanding of the full complexity of the brain. in action and in context. There remains 

much lo discover to attain a comprehensive understanding of the general principles underlying 

how cognition and behavior relate to the brain's structural organization and dynamic activities; 

how brain. behavior, and environment interact; and how the brain can recover from lost 

functionality. Investments that address critical research questions relevant to UtB are also central 

to the Big Ideas activities. 

Education and STEM Workforce 

NSF's education and STEM workforce investment. centered in the Directorate for Education and 

Human Resources (EHR). funds activities that support students. teachers, faculty, researchers. and 

the public. The EHR investment in core STEM education research is critical to building the 

Nation's knowledge base for strategic and impactful STEM learning. NSF's investments for FY 

2019 focus on the tollowing priorities. 

The CvberCorps:R: Scholarship tor Service (SFS! 

$55.0 million is requested for the CyberCorps® program, which supports cybersecurity education 

and research at higher education institutions. SFS also focuses on workforce development by 

increasing the number of qualified students entering the fields of intonnation assurance and 

cybersecurity, which enhances the capacity of the U.S. higher education enterprise to continue to 

produce professionals in these fields to secure the Nation's cyberinfrastructure. FY 2019 activities 

will include engaging first- and second-year undergraduate students. with a focus on veterans. 

Computer Science tor All (CStorAll! 

$20.0 million is requested forCSforAll to build on ongoing cftorts to enable rigorous and engaging 

computer science education in schools across the Nation. to prepare the STEM workforce of the 

future. Funds will support the development of prototype instructional materials, scalable and 

sustainable professional development models. approaches to preservice preparation for computer 

science teachers, teacher resources, and the research to study their impact. CSlorAll aims to 

provide high school teachers with the preparation. professional development. and ongoing support 

that they need to teach rigorous computer science courses and to give preK-8 teachers the 

instructional materials and preparation they need to integrate computer science and computational 

thinking into their teaching. 

The Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (!USE! 

$102.5 million is requested for the !USE initiative, which suppo1ts the development of the STEM 

and STEM-capable workforce by investing in the improvement of undergraduate STEM 

education. with a focus on attracting and retaining students and on degree completion. The 

initiative funds the development and implementation and the related research and assessment of 

effectiveness. 

9 
25 

Advanced Technological Education {ATE! 

$66.0 million is requested for the ATE program, through which NSF is able to reach technicians 

in undergraduate programs preparing for the high-technology fields that drive our Nation's 

economy. Funds will support partnerships between academic institutions and industry to promote 

improvement in the education of science and engineering technicians at the undergraduate and 

secondary school levels. 

The Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP! 

$270.7 million is requested for the GRFP, which recognizes students with high potential in STEM 

research and innovation and provides support for them to pursue research across all science and 

engineering disciplines. GRFP fellows may participate in Graduate Research Opportunities 

Worldwide (GROW), which provides opportunities to conduct research with international partner 

countries and organizations, and Graduate Research Internship Program (GRIP), which provides 

professional development through research internships at federal agencies. In FY 2019. NSF will 

support 1500 new fellows. 

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) 

The FY 2019 Request includes funding to construct two Regional Class Research Vessels and to 

continue construction of the Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope and the Large Synoptic Survey 

Telescope. 

Daniel K. Inouve Solar Telescope !DKIST) 

The construction of DKIST will enable the study of magneto-hydrodynamic phenomena in the 

solar photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. It will allow scientists to study these phenomena at 

unprecedented spatial, temporal, and wavelength resolutions. These phenomena are associated 

with what is generally known as space weather, which can severely impact the Nation's 

infrastructure. $16.13 million is requested in FY 2019, which will be the final year of funding in 

an I I -year funding profile. 

Large Svnoplic Survev Telescope (LSSTJ 

The LSST will be an 8-meter-class wide-field optical telescope capable of carrying out surveys of 

the entire sky. It will collect nearly 40 terabytes of multi-color imaging data every night to produce 

the deepest, widest-field sky image ever. It will also issue alerts for moving and transient objects 

within 60 seconds of their discovery. $48.82 million is requested in FY 2019, which will be year 

six of its nine-year construction funding profile. 

Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV) 

The RCRV will provide scientific int!-astructure that enables increased understanding of: the 

potential impacts of geohazards, such as storm surges and tsunamis; transportation and recreation; 

natural resource identification and extraction; and fisheries and aquaculture, among many other 

topics. $28.7 million is requested in FY 2019 for the construction of two RCRVs. This project is 

a major component in the plan for modernizing the U.S. Academic Research Fleet. 

10 
26 

Implementation of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act 

Signed into law in January 2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (AICA) 

retlects continued strong support for NSF's investments in basic and collaborative research and 

STEM education that benefit the Nation and the world. The AICA affirms NSF's long-standing 

and world-renowned merit review process and addresses NSF's implementation of issues of 

importance such as increased transparency and accountability. and management of multi-user 

facilities and mid-scale projects, while maximizing research and education opportunities that help 

create the innovations that fuel our economy. The AICA promotes the Foundation's commitment 

to diversity in STEM fields. incentivizes NSF's programs that encourage private-sector 

involvement, and re-affirms NSF's continued commitment to entrepreneurship and 

commercialization. 

The AICA does not change NSF's portfolio of investments or the way we do business- in research. 

education. infrastructure, and administration rather, it enhances and strengthens it, and serves to 

codify how NSF invests in science. innovation. and education. NSF has taken an agency-wide 

approach in the implementation of AICA requirements. In May 2017, an AICA Coordinating 

Committee was established to ensure an effective and efficient agency response to the AICA. The 

Coordinating Committee was charged to: coordinate and oversee the implementation of NSF's 

response to the AICA: produce an agency-wide action plan to identify AICA sections requiring 

policy development or executive management decisions: and develop a central repository of 

AICA-related tasks. deliverables. and documentation. 

Recognizing the importance of the public's confidence in our work. the AICA requires that the 

research goals of funded projects are clearly identified in a manner that can be easily understood 

by all audiences. Over the past year. NSF has re-emphasized the need for clarity and strong 

justifications so that the public can understand what we are funding and, most importantly, why 

we are funding it. Each award now explains the project's significance and imp01tance in clear 

language. 

The AICA also focuses on strengthening oversight and accountability for large facilities and 

support for "mid-scale projects." In response, NSF has maintained a Large Facilities Office and 

appointed the agency's tirst Chief Officer for Research Facilities. This position reports directly to 

the Director. These steps. and others such as requiring independent cost estimates, will lead to 

even greater outcomes in our large facilities porttolio. 

NSF has also evaluated the existing and future needs for mid-scale projects as detlned by the 

A !CA. A request lor intonnation was issued to assess the demand tor projects that could cost 

between $20 million and $100 million. NSF received 191 responses totaling a demand of at least 

$10 billion. Based on the demand evident ll·om the responses. $55.0 million is included in the FY 

2019 Budget Request for mid-scale research infrastructure. Separate tracks within the Mid-scale 

program will fund acquisition. design/development. and implementation. 

Title III of the A ICA highlights some areas of STEM Education that have been key investments 

for NSF tor many years and where we arc seeing positive impacts. The law also demonstrates a 

II 
27 

commitment to drawing more people who are talented into STEM fields by inspiring them early 

on with excellent learning opportunities. including engagement in computer science. 

NSF. in collaboration with other agencies, is forming a STEM Education Advisory Council as 

required by the AICA. We solicited nominations and the response was impressive NSF received 

over 500 nominations. including many with support from Members of Congress. Appointments 

are likely to be made in the next month or two. 

The AICA also highlighted the !-CorpsTM program. Since the l-CorpsTM program was established 

in 20 II. NSF has facilitated the formation of over 450 companies that have collectively raised 

over $250 million in seed capital. The l-Corpsnt program is helping to focus efforts on ideas that 

are commercially viable and avoiding expenditures on those that are not. This etllciency, in 

addition to the entrepreneurial skills !-CorpsTM teaches. has made it a highly sought program. ~SF 

currently has memorandums of understanding with nine other federal agencies and the Stale of 

Ohio. The funding requested in the FY 2019 Budget Request will continue and build upon that 

track record of success. 

Conclusion 

In summary, the FY 2019 President's Budget Request for NSF represents a $7.47 billion 

investment in strengthening the nation's economy. security and global leadership through research 

in cutting-edge science and engineering and investments in STEM education and the future 

workforce. At this proposed level of funding, steady with FY 2017 congressional appropriations. 

NSF would continue its work supporting research that advances national priorities such as gro\\1h 

in manufacturing, defense, and cybersecurity. 

Robust NSF investments in discovery research have returned exceptional dividends to the 

American people, expanding knowledge, improving lives, and ensuring our security. To keep 

those benefits flowing. we need to constantly replenish the wellspring of new ideas and train new 

talent while serving as good stewards of the public trust. That is the fundamental and continuing 

mission of NSF. 

Through strong federal leadership. we can not only maintain the standing of our businesses and 

universities, but also seek to increase our strengths: leadership in fundamental discovery, including 

high-risk, high-reward transformational research: state-of~the-art facilities and scientific research 

infrastructure; and a world-class science and engineering workforce. With a firm commitment to 

these fundamental building blocks of our high-tech economy. we can solidifY the role of the United 

States as the world leader in innovation. 

Mr. Chairman. I can say with certainty that the results of frontier research funded by NSF have a 

long record of improving lives and meeting national needs. With the supp01i of this Committee 

and Congress. NSF will continue to invest in the fundamental research and the talented people 

who make the discoveries that transform our future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and tor your continued support of NSF. I will be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

12 
28 

Brwdb~nd 

&Mobile 

Diqitat Compuh'r 

CornmlmiQtiurn 1\.rchite<;:ture 

Perron~! 

Cnmputttl<) 

Cloud 

N.ctworl<inq l'ilralll'l& 

Dl>triburedSyste•m 

Arua,;offundilmenmlile.l(l1lrthlnlT 

fntertun!1'leflt Robotks&AsSlstlve 

&Des•gn TethMiogiel 

I 

. 

CompuWrG!aphks AI&Robotlcs 

Figure 1. From Continuing Innovation in Information Technology Work.shopReport, National Academies of Sciences. Engineering. 

and Medicine,2016. 
29 

Dr. France A. Cordova 

Director 

National Science Foundation 

France A. C6r·dova is an astrophysicist and the 14th director oft he National Science Foundation 

(NSF). the on!) gO\ ernmcnt agency charged "ith advancing all fields of scientific discovery. 

technological innovation. and science. technology. engineering and mathematics (STEM) 

education. NSF is a $7.5 billion independent federal agenc): its programs and initiatives keep the 

United States at the forcti·ont of science and engineering. empower future generations of 

scientists and engineers. and foster L.S. prospcr·ity and global leadership. 

Ccmlova is president emerita of Purdue University. and chancellor emerita of the University of 

California. Riverside.\\ here she was a distinguished professor of physics and astronomy. 

Ct'>rdova was the vice chancellor l(x research and pwtessor of physics at the University of 

California. Santa Barbara. 

Previously. C6rdov a ser·ved as NASA's chief scientist. Prior to joining NASA. she vvas on the 

faculty of the Pennsylvania State University vv here she headed the department of astronomy and 

astrophysics. C\1rdova vv as also deputy group leader in the Earth and space sciences division at 

Lns Alamos National Laboratory. She received her Bachelor· of Arts degree frnm Stanford 

University and her doctorate in physics from the Calii(Jrnia Institute of Technology. 

More recently. C6rdova served as chair of the Board of Regents nfthe Smithsonian Institution 

and on the board of trustees of Mayo Clinic. She alsn scrwcl as a member of the National 

Science Board (NSB). \\here she chairt:d the Committee on Strategy and Budget. •\s NSF 

director. she is an e:-. oftlcio member· of the NSB. 

C(irdova's scientific contributions have been in the areas of obscrv·ational and e:-.perimental 

astroph; sics. multi-spectral research on x-ray and gamma ray sources and space-borne 

instrunwntation. She has published more than I 50 scientific papers. She has been avvarded 

several honorary doctorates. including ones from Purdue and Duke Universities. She is a 

recipient of~ASA's highest hnnnr. the Distinguished Service !"vlcdal. and vvas recognized as a 

Kilby Laureate. The Kilby International Awards recognize C'(traordinary individual:; vvho have 

made "signilicant contributions to ,;ociety through science. techm1log). innovation. invention and 

education." Cr\rdov a was elected to the American ;\eadem) of Arts and Sciences and is a 

National Associate of the National Academics. She is also a lcllovv of the American Association 

l(lr the Alh ancemcnt of Science (AAAS) and the Association for Women in Science (A WIS). 

C6rdova is married to Christian .1. Foster. a science educator. and they have two adult children. 
30 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Co ́rdova. Do you happen to 

have a hard copy of the PowerPoint that was just up on the screen? 

And if so, I’d like to make copies for members maybe even before 

the questions. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. If we could—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. If you have someone I can hand it to—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay.—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —I would be happy to do that. 

Chairman SMITH. That would be great. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. And, Dr. Zuber? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARIA T. ZUBER, 

CHAIR, NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. ZUBER. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and 

Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 

with you about the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget request for 

the National Science Foundation. ‘‘An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest,’’ declared Benjamin Franklin, our nation’s founding innovator. Since World War II, the United States 

has led the world in research, transforming our lives, driving economic growth, and underpinning national security. Sustained bipartisan commitment to investing in fundamental research helped 

establish and maintain U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

But the global science and technology landscape is rapidly changing. Other nations are upping their game. For the first time in over 

a half-century, our S&T leadership is being challenged. According 

to the Board’s 2018 Science and Engineering Indicators Report, 

China’s spending on R&D has grown by an average of 18 percent 

since the year 2000, while ours has grown by only four percent. 

Since 2000, China has tripled the number of STEM bachelor’s degree awardees, and between 2013 and 2016, just three years, venture capital in China climbed from 5 to 27 percent of the global 

share, the fastest increase of any economy. 

Although these trends are not new, in some cutting-edge areas 

of research, the trajectory is more pronounced. Within the last 

year, China erased the U.S. advantage in supercomputing, claiming 

more than 200 of the fastest 500 supercomputers to our 143. Over 

the next five years, China plans to invest 100 times more in artificial intelligence than the United States did in 2016. At the same 

time, total federal R&D funding has been declining from $127 billion in 2011 to $120 billion in 2015. Federal R&D spending as a 

share of GDP is now the lowest it has been since 1953. These 

choices have concrete consequences. If current trends continue, 

China will surpass the United States in total R&D expenditures 

sometime this year. 

Despite these ominous trends, the Board is encouraged by Congress’ agreement on a budgetary framework and the President 

working within those caps to prioritize NSF’s mission of discovery 

in research and the national interest. With the requested level of 

funding in fiscal year 2019, NSF will support basic research across 

all fields of science and engineering that create knowledge, while 

allowing investment in priority areas. 
31 

The Board recognizes the fiscal challenge with—that Congress 

wrestles. In such difficult times, there can be a tendency to play 

it safe, but as America’s innovation agency, NSF is not going to 

play it safe. First, the agency is embracing our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit in trying something new. As the Director has just described, NSF proposes to break out of academic silos by investing 

in new elements to promote cutting-edge interdisciplinary research 

at the frontiers of science and technology: the Big Ideas and convergence accelerators. Much transformative research happens at 

the intersection of scientific fields. The Board believes this 

proactive approach is essential if NSF is to succeed in its mission 

to advance the frontiers of science. 

Next, our nation’s ability to discover, invent, and innovate relies 

on our ability to leverage America’s greatest competitive advantage: our people. To ensure that Americans are equipped to thrive 

in a globally competitive knowledge economy, NSF will work with 

Congress, the Administration, business leaders, educators, and others to create to create a STEM-capable workforce. Our workforce 

of the future must leverage the hard work, creativity, and ingenuity of women and men of all ages, education levels, and backgrounds. NSF will continue to build this workforce through initiatives such as INCLUDES, ATE, and CyberCorps. 

Finally, NSF is committed to innovating and improving our internal processes. The Board takes its responsibility to taxpayers seriously. We are now taking a fresh look at the merit review report, 

working with NSF to advance formal risk-thinking and strategic 

planning and priority-setting, and strengthening our oversight of 

major research facilities. 

And I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Chairman Smith, 

for your leadership and holding us to the highest standards of accountability and transparency. 

Investing in discovery research now will give us the keys to 

meeting unpredictable national security, economic, and health challenges of tomorrow. As President Trump warned, losing our innovation and technological edge would have far-reaching negative implications for American prosperity and power. We need a renewed and 

committed strategy to hold onto this key national asset. 

But in challenge there is also opportunity. If we capitalize on the 

strong foundations of our innovation ecosystem and the talents of 

our people, we can pursue grand visions, enable revolutionary 

ideas, and reap the unexpected advances that emerge from dreaming boldly and fearlessly to pursue fundamental science. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Zuber follows:] 
32 

Testimony of 

Maria T. Zuber, Ph.D. 

Chair 

National Science Board 

National Science Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March 15, 2018 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2019" 

Introduction 

Science has long been at the heart of the American experiment. .. An investment in knowledge always 

pays the best interest:• noted Benjamin Franklin. and the revolutionaries who founded our Nation and 

enshrined the promotion of .. the progress of science and useful arts·· in the Constitution. Since World War 

II. the United States has led the world in basic and applied research. The resulting advances have 

transformed nearly every aspect of Americans' daily lives. driven our economic growth. and underpinned 

our national security. New technologies built on federally-funded discovery research have led to new 

businesses. revolutionized health care. and created the digital world. Sustained. bipartisan commitment to 

investing in fundamental research has played a key role in establishing and maintaining American global 

leadership in science and technology (S&T). Our innovation enterprise is a national asset. and as we make 

the investments our Country needs to compete in the 21" century global economy. we should renew our 

commitment to strengthening this key component of our national infrastructure. Collectively. we must do 

this because the world is changing. other nations are upping their game. and we cannot take our 

leadership for granted. 

The U.S. Science & Technology Enterprise in a Changing Global Landscape 

The global S&T landscape is dynamic and fast-changing. and is becoming increasingly multipolar as 

developing economies, particularly China and other nations in the Asia/Pacific region, are emerging as 

major players (in addition to historic leaders like the U.S .. Western Europe. and Japan). According to the 

National Science Board's (Board; NSB) 2018 Science and Engineering Indicators (Indicators) repo11, the 

United States is still the global leader in S&T. Our 2018 report shows the U.S. invests the most of any 

nation in research and development (R&D). attracts the most venture capital. awards the most advanced 

degrees. provides the most business, tinancial, and information services. and is the largest producer in 

high-technology manufacturing sectors. However. the U.S. global share ofS&T activities is declining as 

other nations continue to rise. For the first time in over a half century. U.S. S&T leadership is threatened. 

1 
33 

R&D expenditures retlect a nation's commitment to expanding capabilities in S&T, which in turn drive 

innovation. While the business sector is the largest performer of R&D in the United States. accounting for 

72% of the $495 billion total in 2015. the bulk of those funds are spent on applied research and 

experimental development. The Federal government remains the largest funder of basic research ($36.9 

billion. 44% of the U.S. basic research total). This Federal government investment is the primary driver of 

both innovative discovery research and the training of a science. technology, engineering. and 

mathematics (STEM)-capable U.S. workforce. Total federal R&D funding has been on a declining trend 

since 201!- from $!27 billion in 2011 to $120 billion in 2015. 

Other countries have recognized the importance of R&D in fueling innovation and economic growth and 

are emulating the United States. China has grown its R&D spending rapidly since 2000, at an average of 

18% annually, and is now a decisive second with 21% of the global total ($408 billion). During the same 

time frame, U.S. R&D spending grew by 4%. Although emerging economies start at a lower base and 

therefore tend to grow much more rapidly, China's growth rate is remarkable. 

To produce results. R&D investments must be coupled with building a highly skilled workforce and, on 

this dimension, we are also seeing increased competition. Students in India and China earned nearly half 

of the more than 7.5 million science and engineering (S&E) bachelor's level degrees awarded in 20!4; the 

United States earned one tenth. At the doctoral leveL the U.S. awarded the largest number of degrees 

(40,000) of any country, followed by China (34,000). While for many decades the U.S. has benefitted 

from and counted on an influx of the best and brightest from around the globe, international student 

numbers in the U.S. dropped between the fall of 2016 and the fall of 20 !7, with the largest declines seen 

at the graduate level in computer science ( 13% decline) and engineering (8% decline). As other countries 

build their innovation capacity. competition tor the world's best students will continue to intensify. 

In addition to education and R&D funding. Indicators reports on increased global competition in venture 

capital and knowledge and technology-intensive industries. Although the overall trends described above 

are not new, in some cutting-edge areas of research the trajectory is more pronounced. For example, over 

the next five years China plans to invest 20 times more in artit!cial intelligence per year than the United 

States did in 2016. And China now claims more than 200 of the fastest 500 supercomputers. while the 

U.S. has less than 150. 1 These trends raise concern about impacts on our economy and worklorce. and 

have implications for our national security. 

Why is U.S. leadership in S&T so important? From quantum computing to artificial intelligence to the 

data revolution, scientific advancements come with both opportunities and risks. To mitigate those risks 

in an increasingly competitive world, it is essential that we stay at the forefront of science and cuttingedge research. The past has shown that investment in basic research now will give us the keys to meeting 

the security, health, and economic challenges of the future- challenges we know will arise but whose 

nature we cannot predict. Recognizing the importance of our research enterprise to American prosperity, 

in the U.S. National Security Strategy President Trump has prioritized nu11uring a ''healthy innovation 

economy that collaborates with allies and partners, improves STEM (science, technology, engineering, 

and math) education. draws on an advanced technical workforce, and invests in early stage research and 

development." 

1 According to https:l/www.topSOO.org; this is based on the UNPACK Benchmark, and does not include the NSFfunded Blue Waters supercomputer. 

2 
34 

The Board is encouraged that under the new spending cap levels passed by Congress. the Administration 

prioritized NSF's mission to pursue discovery research in the national interest. With the requested level of 

funding. NSF will be able support basic research across all fields of science and engineering that create 

knowledge while allowing us to invest in priority areas. This support could not come at a more pivotal 

time. As this year"s Indicators report shows. our lead on many critical S&T measures is shrinking. The 

Board felt strongly enough about these trends to release a statement highlighting that if current trends 

continue, China will surpass the United States in total R&D expenditures sometime this year. America's 

dominance in S&E research has long been a key national asset- one which now requires a renewed 

strategic commitment. because the world is changing fast and our global leadership hangs in the balance. 

NSF: The Innovation Agency 

Innovations in Research: Big ideas and the Convergence Accelerators 

In the face of rising global competition. the Board recognizes that we also face tiscal challenges here at 

home. In difficult times. there can be a tendency to "play it safe." But in the United States. we have 

shown time and time again that we can rise to meet any challenge. We can lay out a vision for where we 

want to lead in the S&T landscape in this century, and then implement policies that will put us on that 

path. As America's innovation agency. NSF is not playing it safe. Rather. we are embracing our nation's 

entrepreneurial spirit and trying something new: NSF proposes in this reqLtest to break out of academic 

silos by adding new elements to our funding structure to invest in cutting-edge interdisciplinary research 

at the frontiers of S&T. 

A few years ago, after several consecutive years of mostly tlat budgets. the Board and Director decided 

that the Foundation must redouble its commitment to prioritizing potentially transjormative research in all 

fields ofS&E. In testimony before the Committee two years ago. we called for a fearless commitment to 

seize the enormous opportunities before us at an unprecedented time in human history. when we have the 

tools, know-how. and understanding to tackle daunting challenges and solve problems that have long 

defied solution. With the full support of the NSB. the Director challenged her leadership team to call out 

areas that are pmiicularly promising to transform the discovery science that NSF makes happen. This 

challenge helped spark the Big Ideas that are a centerpiece of the Presidenrs FY 2019 budget for NSF. 

NSF proposes to begin work on the Big Ideas, and in addition, implement two Convergence Accelerators. 

alongside the funding for NSF's disciplinary directorates. These two approaches arc complementary: the 

fundamental research performed in individual research fields provides the seeds for interdisciplinary 

innovation at the cutting edge of S&T. The time-limited Convergence Accelerators will allow NSF to be 

more nimble and flexible. facilitating convergent and translational activities in areas of national 

importance while giving us greater ability to respond to a rapidly changing global S&T environment. We 

believe this innovative approach is vital; much trans formative research happens at the intersection of 

scientific fields. Indeed. at our Board retreat in September 2017, we discussed convergence at length and 

concurred that it is essential if NSF is to succeed in its mission and stay at the cutting edge of science. 

NSF's Big Ideas for fiscal year 2019 play a significant role in advancing our country's economic 

competitiveness and national security. and in addressing the challenges posed by the rising investments of 

other nations in S&E. The Quantum Leap has already begun with an investment in quantum technologies 

for secure communication. an area of importance for both the private sector and national security. 

3 
35 

Likewise, the agency's Future of Work at the Human Technology Frontier holds high promise for the 

U.S. workforce and our economy. 

As good scientists should, we will assess the performance of these new structures. The Board has worked 

closely with the Director as she and her team developed the Big Ideas. We will work with NSF to develop 

metrics for success in fostering new collaborations across disciplines and sectors. and in spurring 

innovative thinking and activities. As needed, the Board will encourage •·creative destruction" and 

reinvention. If these innovations catalyze progress in research and leverage investment by external 

partners, they could be models for structural and cultural changes not only at NSF but in the U.S. 

scientific and academic community more broadly. We recognize that experimenting with changes in our 

funding model is a strategic risk; but it would be a bigger risk to our national S&E enterprise to remain 

hidebound in a time of external and internal challenges. We hope that Congress will supp011 our new 

approach. 

The STEAf Workforce: Developing our Nmion's Future Innovators 

The success of'iSF's Big Ideas and our Nation's ability to discover. invent. and innovate- relies on 

our ability to leverage America's greatest competitive advantage- our people. As I noted in a recent oped, 2 the generation that propelled us into space is retiring. At the same time. more countries than ever are 

competing for the best minds. Both industry and the federal government report that they are unable to lind 

enough workers at all levels with suflicient STEM knowledge and skills. These reports are especially 

concerning in the national security arena, where employees must be U.S. citizens. The National Security 

Agency recently reported significant levels of attrition among personnel whose jobs require substantial 

STEM knowledge. 

We believe that for our Nation to continue to thrive and lead in a globally competitive knowledge- and 

technology-intensive economy we can no longer rely on a relatively small and distinct "STEM 

workforce." Congress. the Administration, business leaders, educators, and other decision-makers must 

work together to ensure that Americans have the STEM knowledge and skills to thrive. leveraging the 

hard work, creativity. and ingenuity of women and men of all ages. education levels, and backgrounds.' 

We need scientists searching for cures. engineers building stronger bridges, factory workers making our 

cars safer. technicians keeping our labs and hospitals operating, and farmers producing healthier crops 

using fewer resources. 

Thanks to the strong bipartisan support of Congress, NSf' will continue to play a leading role in building 

and sustaining this workforce. NSF is the innovation agency not only for the discoveries it funds. but for 

the people it helps educate and train at all levels who contribute to our Nation's economic prosperity and 

sccmity. One of NSF's process-focused Big Ideas, NSF INCLUDES, is designed to ensure that all 

Americans have access to educational and career opportunities enabled by STEM. The vision of NSF 

INCLUDES is to catalyze the STEM enterprise to work collaboratively for inclusive change, which will 

help ensure that all Americans are able to participate in and benetit from our S&T enterprise. 

2 Zuber. M.T., '·railing Short on Science". New York Times. January 28.2018. 

(bl!J!)_;;_·~-":~~~:.DHi 111~ s .s;pnl '2 0 _!]J.U _;Q_Qlliill_t'llE11llin e ~s hurt:S:~l:i~t~ns;~ .. bJmJ) 3 National Science Board (20 18), "Our Nation's Future Competitiveness Relies on Building a STEM-Capable U.S. 

\Vorkforce." 0J1lt?~;_:_~~~-":~Jl.,.!l~ f. !!O\ 1!2.\;?_'s.._ci 'cQ.!!!Q.ill!ig_n-brkt~N2lt:_2jJ_I__8_:_1_,t?d D 

4 
36 

The NSB also bears responsibility for helping to build and sustain a STEM-capable U.S. workforce. 

NSF's lndica/Ors report provides us with an opportunity to inform and update our Nation's understanding 

of the state of STEM education and the workforce. Indicators 2018 shows that the number of U.S. jobs 

requiring substantial STEM expertise has grown nearly 34% over the past decade. As of2015. nearly one 

in seven workers with at least a four-year degree say that their job requires a "bachelor's level" of STEM 

expertise. 

These numbers do not include the more than 16 millionjobs that require significant expe1tise in at least 

one technical tield but do not require a bachelor's degree. These "skilled technical jobs" are well-paying. 

and are found across the United States. Skilled technical workers are also critical to our Nation's S&T 

infrastructure. In 20 I 7. the NSB visited the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) 

in Louisiana. We have heard of the LIGO scientists who won the Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery 

of gravitational waves. What is less publicized is that LIGO is an industrial facility: miles of carefully 

welded high vacuum pipeline and banks of air filters as tall as a house. It is skilled technical workersHVAC experts, electricians. and other workers without a four-year degree who helped build LIGO and 

keep it running so that these fundamental scientific discoveries can be made. 

NSF is making key investments to build the skilled technical workforce. The Advanced Technological 

Education (ATE) program. created by Congress in the early 1990s. is focused on two-year colleges and 

supports the education oftechnieians in high-technology fields. The program involves partnerships 

between academic institutions and industry to promote improvement in the education ofS&E technicians 

at the undergraduate and secondary school levels. The ATE program particularly encourages proposals 

from Minority Serving Institutions. where the proportion of underrepresented students interested in 

advanced technology careers is growing. To date. ATE has awarded more than $950M total to 492 

institutions. 

In 2014, ATE projects and centers developed 2.430 education materials. such as courses, lab experiments 

or other types of educational activity. Of the students participating in ATE programs during 2014. 91% 

either continued in their program or completed a program. ATE projects and centers have 3.890 

collaborations with business and industry. and 90 ATE projects and centers offered 2,190 professional 

development activities attended by 45.830 educators. ATE projects have also been successful in 

broadening participation. Women have signiticant leadership roles in ATE with 24 of the 42 ATE centers 

having female principal investigators. According to a survey of ATE grantees, underrepresented minority 

students comprise 44% of all students in ATE-suppm1ed programs: this is about double the percentage of 

minority students in other STEM programs. In shoJi. ATE increases knowledge. catalyzes institutional 

change, and builds capacity. 

CyberCorps- Scholarship for Service ti.mds institutions of higher education to develop and enhance 

cybersecurity education programs and curricula: and to provide scholarships to undergraduate and 

graduate students in strong academic cybersecurity programs- an area of key strategic importance to U.S. 

national security. The students receiving scholarships must be U.S. citizens or lawti.Ji permanent residents 

and must be able to meet the eligibility and selection criteria for government employment. Students can 

be supported on these scholarships for up to three years, and in return. they agree to take government 

cybersecurity positions for the same duration as their scholarships. The program also requires a summer 

internship at a Federal agency. Government agencies eligible forjob placement include FederaL state. 

local. and tribal governments. 

5 
37 

In recognition of the importance of this segment of the U.S. workforce. the NSB began gathering 

information on the skilled technical workforce in early 2017. After holding several meetings at NSF 

throughout 2017. the NSB felt it could better understand the oppommities and challenges facing students. 

workers. business. and educators involved with the skilled technical workforce by engaging with them 

directly. Last autumn. NSB held "listening sessions" at Baton Rouge Community College and Xavier 

University of Louisiana, where we heard from local stakeholders about the skilled technical workforce as 

well as issues for underrepresented minorities in STEM. These sessions put names and faces to the 

myriad of challenges these students face. Their stories served as a powerful motivator, and in November 

2017 the NSB formally established a Task Force on the Skilled Technical Workforce.+ This Task Force is 

charged with leading the NSB's efforts to strengthen the skilled technical workforce, and we arc eagerly 

anticipating our next listening session this April at one of NSF's ATE Centers outside Detroit. Michigan. 

bmovating Jrithinthe Agency: Improving Our Processes 

In its oversight. policy. and strategy work. the Board takes seriously its responsibilities to provide strong 

governance and stewardship of this taxpayer investment. The Board continues to monitor NSF's 

implementation of transparency and accountability measures to ensure that the research goals of funded 

projects are clearly identified and expressed in plain language. 

NSB is also currently taking a fresh look at the Board-mandated biennial merit review report. NSB sees 

merit review as NSF's lifeblood. We want to ensure not only that the merit review process is working 

well. but that in assessing it that we are asking the right questions. collecting the right data, and 

generating a report that helps NSF ensure that the merit review process is meeting our strategic goals. 

Over the last year. the NSB has also worked with NSF to advance formal risk thinking in strategic 

planning and priority setting. overseeing the Foundation's adoption of Enterprise Risk Management 

(ERM). This work is paving the "ay for a true enterprise-wide approach to risk management that 

transcends ERM' s traditional focus on business processes. As pat1 of this effort. NSB has encouraged 

NSF to embrace strategy risks (i.e .. to avoid "playing it safe") such as SL!pport lor convergent research 

while stressing the need to eliminate preventable risks. Adoption of a formal approach and shared 

vocabulary around risk has improved NSB-NSF management discussions and is helping NSF as it 

implements OMB's ERM requirements. 

The restructuring of Board committees in February 2017 and NSB's risk work was done, in part, to 

strengthen our engagement with and oversight of major research facilities, in coordination with NSF's 

ongoing internal improvements. In the past year. we've worked with NSF to refine recompetition and 

renewal policies and improve strategic planning around divestment of facilities. We continue to push for 

more comprehensive lifecycle planning with all facilities awards and are very pleased with the AICA 's 

emphasis on this and NSF's response. In a period of budget constraints and rising costs of cutting edge 

experiments, we are also (as directed in FY 2017 appropriations report language) taking a close look at 

facility operations and maintenance (O&M) and will be presenting a report on that subject to Congress in 

the coming months. 

NSB's Budget Request 

4 Charge to the NSB Task force on the Skilled Technical Workforce (20 18 ). 

(b_t_lp,s_~::'J1.lC_g_o~~n>b SQLll!_ni_q~s;s_:_~y_y~nJ1£J_;;n) 

6 
38 

The National Science Board's FY 2019 Budget Request will facilitate the continued thoughtful 

enhancement of the Board's effo11s to strengthen the U.S. S&E enterprise through its policy and 

information-related activities, as well as ongoing work reviewing and approving major NSF awards, 

providing guidance on new programs and budgetary priorities. and overseeing programs, merit review. 

and the lifecycle of facilities. The request supports the Board's ongoing etTorts to communicate key data 

from Indicators 2018 in accessible, policy-relevant ways through its recently released companion 

statement on the importance of building a STEM-capable U.S. workforce, and the production of 51 onepagers (all 50 states and DC) on key S&E facts. 

The Board will build on this companion statement through the continued the work ofNSB's Skilled 

Technical Workforce Task Force, including through listening sessions that expand our understanding of 

the skilled technical workforce and other topics. One thing we have clearly learned so far is that 

perspective into workforce needs and challenges can only be gained by meeting with stakeholders. 

In FY 2019, the Board will strive to make the next edition of Indicators (2020) more useful, timely, and 

accessible to our stakeholders by creating interactive digital products. The Request will also allow the 

Board to further increase its engagement with Congress, the Administration, academia, the business 

community. and the general public to better understand their diverse needs. 

Conclusion 

As we look at the world in 2018, we lind ourselves at an ''all hands-on deck" moment If we do not lead 

the global science and technology enterprise. China will. But in challenge there is also opportunity, and 

the good news is that if we capitalize on the strong foundations of our research ecosystem and the talents 

of all our people. we are well poised to maintain our lead in S&T. Opportunities abound for creating new 

partnerships and strengthening those already established among government agencies, universities, and 

industry; across scientific disciplines; and among scientists who span the globe. 

The freewheeling creativity and competitive, entrepreneurial ethos that infuses our researchers is the 

"secret sauce" of America's scicntitic enterprise. The bedrock of our research ecosystem is the fi·eedom 

we give our researchers to explore new frontiers and see where discovery leads them. Time and time 

again. the freedom of inquiry enabled by federal support for fundamental research through NSF and other 

government agencies has led to surprising new knowledge that advanced our nation in unexpected, 

unpredictable ways. As President Ronald Reagan noted, "The remarkable thing is that although basic 

research does not begin with a particular practical goal, when you look at the results over the years, it 

ends up being one of the most practical things government does." 

Fifty-five years ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged Americans to shoot for the Moon. Our 

national commitment to winning that race, and our belief that we could do anything we put our minds to, 

spurred creative collaboration and competition that resulted in science and technology advances that have 

bene1ited every one of us, far beyond the original goal. Today, we should be inspired by the spirit to once 

again dream boldly and take risks in the pursuit of fundamental knowledge and innovation. Maintaining 

our global leadership will require increased efforts from both government and industry. working in 

partnership with our universities. Together, we can pursue grand visions, enable revolutionary ideas, and 

see what unexpected advances may emerge from asking fundamental scientific questions. To write the 

next chapter in the story of science and of our nation, we should continue to let discovery be our guide. 

7 
39 

Maria T. Zuber 

Biography 

Geophysics 

B.A., University of Pennsylvania. 1980 

Sc.M., Brown University, 1983 

Ph.D., Brown University, 1986 

Maria T. Zuber, the E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics, has been a member of the faculty at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1995 and served as the Head of the Department of 

Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences from 2003-2011. In January 2013, she was appointed 

Vice President for Research with overall responsibility for research administration and policy at the 

Institute. She oversees more than a dozen interdisciplinary research laboratories and centers, 

including the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, the MIT Energy Initiative, the Plasma 

Science and Fusion Center, the Research Laboratory of Electronics, the Institute for Nanosoldier 

Technologies, the Center for Material Science and Engineering, and the Haystack Observatory. The 

Office of Sponsored Programs, International Scholars Office, and Division of Comparative Medicine, 

among others report to the Vice President for Research. The VPR is responsible for research integrity 

and compliance and plays a central role in research relationships with the federal government. 

Zuber's research bridges planetary geophysics and the technology of space-based laser and radio 

systems, and she has published over 300 papers. Since 1990, she has held leadership roles 

associated with scientific experiments or instrumentation on nine NASA missions; at present, she 

remains involved with six of these missions. Zuber is principal investigator for NASA's Gravity 

Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission, an effort to map the Moon's gravitational field, 

begun in 2008. 

Dr. Zuber has won numerous awards including the MIT James R. Killian Jr. Faculty Achievement 

Award, NASA's Outstanding Scientific Achievement Medal, Distinguished Public Service Medal and 

Outstanding Public Leadership Medal, as well as the American Geophysical Union Harry H. Hess 

Medal, the Geological Society of America G. K. Gilbert Award and the American Astronautical 

Society/Planetary Society Carl Sagan Memorial Award. She is a member of the National Academy of 

Sciences and American Philosophical Society, and is a fellow for the American Academy of Arts and 

Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society and the 

American Geophysical Union. 

In 2004, Zuber served on the Presidential Commission on the Implementation of United States Space 

Exploration Policy. In 2002, Discover magazine named her one of the 50 most important women in 

science and, in 2008, she was named to the US News/Harvard Kennedy School List of America's Best 

Leaders. 
40 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Zuber. 

I’ll recognize myself for questions and address the first one to Dr. 

Co ́rdova. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, last year, I think you had 40,000 grant proposals 

that were not funded. You clearly have an abundance of projects 

to choose from. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, you 

only approve about one out of every five proposals. How do you assure us, how do you assure the American people, that only the best 

projects are being funded? I mentioned in my opening statement a 

half-dozen that I thought were questionable. It seems to me that 

none of them should have been funded. I don’t see the justification 

myself. But how do you screen proposals? How do you ensure that 

they are in the national interest? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. As Dr. Zuber mentioned, our merit review process 

is really the answer to your question, Chairman Smith. Every one 

of the proposals that we receive—and we receive approximately 

50,000 a year—go through our world-lauded merit review process— 

which many countries of the world have copied because it is a process of very high integrity. 

I want to address just for a second your specific question on particular proposals. I think our very first meeting a week after I took 

this job—so that would be four years ago—was about such proposals. And I took this very personally to examine how these proposals were approved and personally looked at the individual proposals. Then, we had a team of people look at the whole merit review process that was associated with each one. I was convinced in 

the end—a process that I had to do myself—I was convinced in the 

end that each one met our very high standards of intellectual merit 

and broader impact. 

Chairman SMITH. I understand the merit review process. Would 

you get—let me just pick one out. Would you get back to me as to 

why the merit review process found $450,000 to study why there 

is no single English word for ‘‘light blue?’’ Will you get back to me 

on why that was in the national interest, for example? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, of course. For each one of the projects that’s 

been questioned, we have written a report. They’re all online. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I do not know about that particular one, but of 

course we will get back to you. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Dr. Zuber, we have talked about this before, but China is reportedly investing $10 billion in quantum research, far more than the 

United States. How can the United States stay competitive, and 

isn’t that a threat and a danger for China to keep outspending us 

in so many of these research areas? 

Dr. ZUBER. Well, quantum is of course incredibly important for 

national security but also on the financial system as well since cybersecurity affects financial transactions and actually personal 

transactions, the energy grid, et cetera. So there are a variety of 

places in the U.S. government that invest in cybersecurity and also 

the private sector as well, and we need some communication there. 

But I think a key thing that we have to have is we need coordination among—of—among different agencies. Some are the on the 

classified side, some are on the unclassified side—— 
41 

Chairman SMITH. Right. 

Dr. ZUBER. —but the basic research, you know, is done on the 

unclassified side, and there needs to be some crosstalk in terms of 

what is actually needed early on. And then that could be communicated and then, you know, the classified side can take it over. 

Another thing that I would say is that we need to be thinking 

about our education system as well and evolving it, so we—you 

know, how many programs have quantum engineering? Okay. MIT 

doesn’t even have quantum engineering as a discipline. And we 

need to be—— 

Chairman SMITH. Can’t you—— 

Dr. ZUBER. —thinking about—— 

Chairman SMITH. Can’t you change that? 

Dr. ZUBER. —although—we certainly are teaching those sorts of 

things, but we don’t have a specific program on it—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. ZUBER. —and I think research universities ought to be thinking about developing those programs—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. ZUBER. —to train the next generation of researchers that are 

needed to take on these problems. 

Chairman SMITH. Let me go to my next question. I assume you’ll 

have some influence in trying to persuade MIT to have a program 

in quantum engineering, right? 

Dr. ZUBER. I think I might be able to. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay, good. My last question is this, the FBI 

recently shared concerns that countries like China are exploiting 

U.S. academic institutions and are taking advantage of the federal 

research funding. They’re also trying to indoctrinate students. Do 

you share the FBI’s concerns? 

Dr. ZUBER. There certainly is some legitimacy to those concerns. 

Certainly, the United States needs to interact with China. They’re 

a global power. There are things that it makes sense for us to collaborate on. It makes sense for us to attract talented Chinese students. We ought to work hard at keeping the best people in the 

United States after they get their degrees. But we ought to—we 

need to do a much better job in terms of training those students 

and actually our professors about issues of intellectual property so 

that we can respect the inventions and achievements of our people 

in the universities. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Zuber. 

I will go to the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, for 

questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you Dr. Co ́rdova, Dr. Zuber, and Dr.—is it Ferrini-Mundy? Thank 

you all for joining us today. And thank you, Chairman Smith and 

Ranking Member Johnson. 

I just wanted to mention I know, Chairman Smith, in your opening you mentioned a couple of NSF-funded projects that you 

thought were questionable. I hope this year you can attend with us 

the Golden Goose Awards. The Golden Goose Awards are bipartisan recognition of scientists whose federally funded basic research 

has led to innovations with a significant impact on society, and it’s 
42 

often research with odd-sounding titles or names. So I hope you 

can join us for that because it’s a really inspiring event. 

This is a really important conversation we’re having. We do want 

the United States to continue to be a leader, but unfortunately, 

this budget is, I believe, about the ninth year of flat funding. If we 

want to continue to be the leader, we should be increasing investments, not decreasing investments in the National Science Foundation. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, Oregon State University is leading efforts to design 

and construct the next generation of NSF regional class research 

vessels. The ships are designed to operate primarily in coastal 

waters and bays and estuaries on the West, East, and Gulf Coasts. 

They reflect an important long-term investment to advance marine 

transportation, sound fisheries management, national security priorities. This research is essential for any coastal region. 

And I appreciate the NSF efforts in the short term to balance investments in research and infrastructure, but I am disappointed 

that the NSF budget request supports the construction of only two 

rather than three research class vessels. Without Congress investing in the three ships, many of the Nation’s oceanographic scientists will be forced to rely on older ships that are less efficient 

to operate and maintain and that lack the technological and scientific capabilities for conducting research safely with the most advanced methods of the 21st century. 

Additionally, because of economies of scale, the second ship is 

less expensive than the first, and the third would be less expensive 

than the second. So could you please explain to the panel how 

funding for a third vessel would contribute to the work of the NSF 

in the advancement of ocean sciences? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Congresswoman. The two RCRVs 

which are in our budget will significantly improve the support of 

science over their current capabilities, and this number of new vessels is in line with the minimum number recommended in the National Academies Sea Change report. Two vessels will support research in all major coastlines through the existing coastal research 

vessels program, and that is what is in our budget request. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. I just want to say for the record that 

because a third would be less expensive than a second and it would 

be beneficial to have the third, I hope that somehow we can get to 

three vessels. 

Also, NSF is proposing a steep cut of 11 percent to the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, SBE. I’m disappointed but actually 

not surprised that the Administration is targeting this program, 

but one of America’s greatest strengths is innovation. It’s not 

enough to educate world-class engineers, technologists, and scientists; we also need creative and critical thinkers. Our propensity 

for being entrepreneurial and cutting-edge is fostered through the 

arts and social science education. In fact, the Weather Forecasting 

Innovation Act I worked on and was signed into law last year included language about incorporating social sciences in community 

readiness and resilience efforts, especially in how we communicate 

that. 

So, Dr. Co ́rdova and Dr. Zuber, you’ve both made strong statements about the value of SBE sciences in the past. Can you tell us 
43 

more about SBE sciences and how they intersect with issues of national importance, and can you ensure members of this Committee 

that the NSF is committed to its mission of supporting all fields 

of science and engineering including social sciences? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, I will start and I am sure Dr. Zuber can add 

to this. Last year, we asked the National Academies to do a study 

on the value of the social and behavioral, economic sciences. They 

did a study very quickly, in just a few months’ time, that had a 

wonderful group of examples about how important these sciences 

have been to national needs. 

The second point I want to make is that we have in this new 

structure that we described today that’s in the fiscal year 2019 

budget of the Big Ideas that all of the Big Ideas are convergent 

ideas. They bring together all the disciplines, and social and behavioral sciences will be a big part of that contribution, so there will 

be many opportunities under those Big Ideas to further the value 

of the social sciences. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. 

Dr. ZUBER. And I would—— 

Ms. BONAMICI. Microphone. 

Dr. ZUBER. Excuse me. So there are—you know, there are many 

obvious examples of areas where the social and behavioral sciences 

are important for economic competitiveness and national security. 

So for—you know, when you talk about in weather forecasting, you 

know, having—what’s the right time to put out a siren, you know, 

to have people take shelter. If you do it too often, people will tend 

to ignore it. There are cases in opioid abuse there where we need 

information on the social and behavioral sciences to understand 

trends and threats. You know, facial recognition software actually 

was used by a laboratory that I see, Lincoln Laboratory, that was 

actually used to then apprehend the marathon bombers. 

So one can go on and on about the value of these, and I think 

we actually need to go by more than just the titles because when 

we go in and we actually see what the actual research in—is in 

these grants, I agree with the Director that it is—it’s been through 

rigorous peer review and it’s substantive. 

And the final thing that I would say on this is that we’re actually 

at the forefront of a revolution in the social and behavioral 

sciences. So in SBE right now, they’re using the computer power 

that mathematical and physical sciences used a decade ago. So this 

entire field is really moving into a much more quantitative regime, 

and so, you know, that will just allow, you know, a lot of really objective important work to take place in support of the other areas 

of science within NSF. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Oh, thank you. I see my time is expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been very concerned that we are not putting enough emphasis on trying to secure the world in case we would spot an asteroid heading toward the Earth. And over the years I’ve been very 

conscious of this because that could happen tomorrow. And I’ve 

talked about it over the years, and it seems to me that we are not 
44 

taking the steps that we could so that if an asteroid is seen, that 

we know what we’re going to do, how to deflect it, et cetera. 

One of the tools that is vital in that goal, in achieving that goal 

of being able to identify the course of some object in space that 

could do incredible damage to the world, one of the elements is the 

Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. It actually provides us the 

ability to go years out in charting the course to see if it is dangerous to the world. We’ve got a bunch of young people here, and 

we want you to have the world that we had, and we need to be prepared for a possibility that an asteroid could actually come in and 

destroy that world. 

Are we—what are we doing to make sure that what Arecibo has 

been doing in providing that service and that ability to chart those, 

how are we making sure that that is still getting done? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. As you know, a lot of that work is done by NASA 

as a participant at Arecibo Observatory. We have just recently announced a new partnership with the University of Central Florida, 

which will be gradually taking over the management of Arecibo. 

And this was a good solution, we feel, to our divestment planning 

for that observatory, which will take place over several years’ time. 

We think it’s in very good hands with the University of Central 

Florida as a steward. 

The hurricanes, as you know, did wreak some damage on the observatory, it wreaked a lot more damage on the entire island, 

which everybody is trying to recover from. We are now back up 

with the observatory up and running. There are certain things that 

we still can’t do, but we have supplemental funding request included in the Bipartisan Budget Act for necessary repair expenses 

to repair—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So are you committed to—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —our facility. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —making sure that the Arecibo telescope and 

its capabilities of spotting these types of objects that could threaten 

the planet, that it will still—however you restructure the system—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —it still will provide that capability to those 

people who are concerned about this issue? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. As long as we have our partnership with NASA, 

yes. They are the ones that are really doing that program with us 

at Arecibo. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. So it’s a qualified yes? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, all right. I was wondering—and we’re 

talking about the budget—sometimes when the Chairman justifiably says, ‘‘wait a minute, what kind of study is this? Why did you 

do that?’’ And you know, when I was younger my father was a military officer and he took me outside at a certain time of year and 

said, ‘‘See all those planes flying around? I was ordered to send 

those planes flying around because we had to use up the fuel allotment, and we had to use our budget, totally use it up or they were 

afraid that they would lose the budget the next year.’’ Now, are— 
45 

how many of these types of nonsensical studies that we’re talking 

about are simply at the end of the fiscal year and being used to 

make sure that they use up the budgets so that at the same 

amount next year? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I appreciate your concern, but I think the answer 

would be none of them. Again, going back to our merit review process, we have on any given day several hundred people from the external community at NSF reviewing the proposals and grading 

them very strictly. We leave about $4 billion worth of proposals 

rated excellent on the cutting room floor because we don’t have 

enough to fund them. So you can be sure that the ones we do fund 

have gone through a very rigorous process. 

I also want to take this opportunity to add that, as of March 1 

of this year, new language has been inserted in all NSF award abstracts, and this says, and I quote, ‘‘This award reflects NSF’s statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through 

evaluation using the Foundation’s intellectual merit and broader 

impacts review criteria,’’ and it’s a pause for every division leader 

who has the ultimate approval of programs that are approved within the division by the program officers or recommend for funding. 

They have the final signoff. They ask does this fulfill national 

needs? Does it really pass the merit review criteria? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, as the Chairman noted, there are some 

projects that passed, and obviously, somebody’s judgment was impaired or, as I say, people were looking to use their budget. But 

we’ll be watching. We’re—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we wish you well. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Congressman Rohrabacher, I’d be pleased to visit 

you in your office and go through all—we’ve written a response to 

every proposal that’s been criticized. Those responses I share these 

responses with people that publish the criticisms, and they’re all 

online. And I think once we talk about it—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure, I’ll take a look at it. 

Chairman SMITH. Dr. Co ́rdova, I just looked at the justification for $450,000 for light blue. If you find anything in the national interest in your justification, let me know. I did not see it. 

The gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized for 

her questions. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much for 

joining us today for these incredibly important issues that have 

those short-term and long-term impacts for all Americans. 

Millions of Americans are unquestionably better off because of 

the basic research that the National Science Foundation has funded over decades. It’s helped spawn, as you noted, Dr. Co ́rdova, 

some of the giant companies, the cutting-edge companies in this 

country like Google and Symantec and QUALCOMM. But I have 

to tell you and in my district recently one of the state universities, 

Central Connecticut State University, just received a $5 million 

grant to reach out to underrepresented and minority students to 

encourage their participation in the sciences. So I know from the 

ground level how important that is both to the students but also 

to the companies in the area who need to see that talented pipeline 

of students. 
46 

But that’s one of the reasons why I’m so concerned that the 

President’s budget is not going up but rather going down. And the 

purchasing power has been steadily eroded for quite a number of 

years now. Since 2000, China has grown its R&D budget by approximately 18 percent annually. In the United States, that has increased by four percent. We are seeing the impacts of that across 

the board. I’m hearing from companies that—and I’m hearing for 

research institutions, they cannot retain their top scholars because 

other countries are offering them more predictable funding for 

longer periods of time and greater flexibility. 

So I’m deeply concerned about that. We try to get the best and 

brightest. Some of them are homegrown; some of them are from 

around the world. But then for—and sometimes immigration reasons they’re not allowed to stay, and that’s a different—I realize 

not your department, but if you care to talk about the impact that’s 

having on our higher ed and research, I’d welcome that. 

But particularly, this impact on not having consistent high-level 

funding is making our research institutions like UConn and Yale 

in my State of Connecticut are having increasing difficulty in retaining the top-tier talent. And that has spillover effects, and that 

means then the companies don’t want to say stay because they 

aren’t seeing the best research. Can you tell us a little bit about 

what you’re hearing and what you’re seeing on that front? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. To turn for a response to our Chief Operating Officer who was, as you know, at one time head of our Education and 

Human Resources Directorate. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you. Thank you for the question. A 

big piece of our investment, as you have noted of course, is developing pathways for talent for STEM, which is a piece of creating 

an ecosystem that enables a healthy STEM enterprise to occur in 

States and universities and in the Nation. We are very pleased 

with the breadth of our STEM education investments. They include 

our new big idea INCLUDES program, which is very much focused 

on making certain that we are tapping the full diversity of our nation, the full talent of our nation to ensure that we have a set of 

people who will be able to take leadership roles in universities, in 

the private sector going forward. So, we see this as a very important piece of our overall investment. 

I would add that our restructuring within this particular budget 

to focus on the innovations that will be possible through our Big 

Ideas we hope will be very exciting to the research community and 

will intrigue scholars across the Nation because of the new convergence possibilities within this area. 

Ms. ESTY. But we’re also looking at the fact that—and, Dr. 

Co ́rdova, you mentioned this—the number of project proposals that 

receive excellent ratings and yet can’t be funded because there simply isn’t enough money to go around. And I have to say I’m concerned about that because when we do have top-tier talent and we 

do have top-tier research projects that we’re unable to fund, then 

we get brain drain out of this country and it’s hard to bring them 

back. Dr. Zuber? 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, so if I could comment on that. So I don’t—you 

know, I don’t personally know what the right level of funding for 

NSF should be because there are of course many competing worthy 
47 

the priorities. But I do know that of the NSF’s $7.4 billion budget 

if we look at the number of proposals that received very good or 

excellent reviews, which means they were in the top the top-rated 

proposals that went unfunded because of the lack of funds, that’s 

another $3.92 billion. So that would correspond to an NSF budget 

one and a half times what the current budget is without compromising in the least bit on quality. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses 

for coming today, fascinating testimony. 

I share the interest in planetary defense with Congressman 

Rohrabacher, and I’m glad to know that Arecibo will continue to 

monitor for our planetary defense. Have you publish any studies on 

our planetary defense? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I’m not aware of any, but I will check and find out. 

I’m sure that other agencies have, but I’m not aware of studies—— 

Mr. POSEY. If you have, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it to my 

office. And I might state clearly that I do appreciate the direction 

that you’re taking the agency now compared to the last Administration, and as the Chairman pointed out, the $700,000 on Climate 

Change Musical or $1.5 million to study pasture management in 

Mongolia, I remember medieval basket weaving, studying why one 

certain segment of women are fat. 

I mean, compared to the China budget that somebody was talking about before, I think we’ll find that we spend more real resources on research than they do, and I think if they got caught 

wasting the money on some of the things we have done, they’d 

probably put some people to death over there for it. All we can do 

is struggle to protect the taxpayers from stuff like that in the future. 

You mentioned the opioid crisis. My driving question was going 

to be whether or not we have put any study toward the behavioral 

sciences. Have we ever looked at the opioid crisis or the root causes 

of violence in our schools? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Certainly within a variety of our directorates, including our social, behavioral, economic sciences, studies 

of behavior have been crucial in helping us to understand why various trends happen in society, how to make change, how to change 

people’s behavior. That is part of the fundamental work in the social, behavioral sciences. So we certainly have some investment in 

those kinds of things, and we can follow up with some very particular kinds of examples for you if that would be useful. 

Mr. POSEY. I would like information on particular resources 

you’ve developed on the opioid crisis and also the violence in our 

schools. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Certainly. And again, these would be resources that are funded principal investigators have produced with 

NSF funding, and so we can certainly survey what we have and get 

that to you. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Any insight you could give us now as to what 

they revealed? 
48 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I think we need to get back to you with details to be sure that we get it to be accurate. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

And the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Rosen, is recognized. 

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Thank you to the distinguished panel here today. I really appreciate your work and 

your—all the advancements that you’ve made and your commitment to science. 

You know, I want to really talk about computer science because 

it’s really critical right now. I’m a former computer scientist myself. 

But as our economy changes and we become increasingly driven by 

technology and data analytics, whether it’s hard science or behavioral science in order for us to move our country forward in meaningful ways, this committee really has tried to ensure that we’re 

educating the next generation of computing experts. 

I’d like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson. 

We did get my bills passed, ‘‘Code Like a Girl’’ and the ‘‘Building 

Blocks of STEM’’ to help in our education for young girls in early 

childhood. 

But one of my top budget requests is for the computer and information science and engineering program which supports both computer information science and engineering research. It’s going to 

cut—the President’s budget is cutting this STEM+C by $19 million. 

So, Dr. Co ́rdova, I really want to see if you could address the 

changes NSF is making in its approach to supporting computer 

science, especially in the lower grades, to ensure that we have the 

people pipeline coming through. How do we best support—you talk 

about the evolution of our education that needs to happen. It can’t 

just happen at the university level. We have to prepare these kids 

coming up. We’re getting these big budget cuts. How can we do 

that? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you, Congresswoman Rosen, and thank you 

for your passion on this subject. So these are two things I want to 

say. One is that computer and information science and engineering 

is not really being cut because they’re an enormous part of the Big 

Ideas. In fact, of the two convergence accelerators, one is Harnessing the Data Revolution is all in that area, and the other one 

is the Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier, and 

that’s about artificial intelligence, machine learning, neural networks, and so on. So, they are an integral part of shaping those accelerators and of the big corresponding fundamental Big Ideas. 

In K–12, we have several programs in computer science. I’ll just 

run through the names of them and we can send you follow-up details, but Computer Science for All supports researcher-practitioner 

partnerships that foster the need to bring computational thinking 

to schools at that level. We have STEM+C, computing partnerships 

in K–12, Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and 

Teachers, Discovery Research PreK–12. Those are all K–12 programs that promote the interests of students and their capabilities 

to participate in the STEM and computer science workforce. 

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you. I really appreciate that because I think 

if we don’t build our natural people pipeline starting in kindergarten, especially with young girls and minorities, people who don’t 
49 

think that they can do this or these things aren’t open to them, 

then we are really losing a valuable asset to our future growth, so 

thank you for your work. 

I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Rosen. 

And the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, and I 

appreciate each one of you being here today. I’m glad to have you 

and appreciate the very interesting testimony. And I was very interested in the Puerto Rican observatory, and I’m grateful to hear 

what’s going to happen there. 

One thing that seems to have been highly emphasized here today 

and it’s appropriate to emphasize is the budget because we’re talking about budget today. But what I continue to hear is the detriment that’s going to happen to the budget for my friends across 

the aisle. But it’s okay to point out problems; I don’t mind pointing 

out problems. Let’s tackle them. Let’s take them head-on. 

But when we talk about percentage of growth in, say, tech spending in China versus tech spending in the United States, nobody 

talks about what the baseline is because if you’re going to make an 

assessment that’s on comparability of funding, you really need to 

know what the baseline is when you start talking about percentages. And China over the last 30 years has increased dramatically 

in their overall funding and tech spending, but their baseline was 

very low to begin with and now the projections are sometime in the 

early ’20s, that they will actually meet somewhere near where the 

United States is. But as far as real dollars go, the United States 

continues to be a leader there, and I think that’s critical to understand. 

And the other thing I would say is there’s a lot that goes into 

creating a national budget. And China already is overall matching 

E.U. spending according to the reports that I just read because I 

was curious when I started hearing all this, I thought, I’m going 

to pull up some reports and see what I can get. But there are other 

things—other variables not in consideration here, for instance, are 

we tacitly subsidizing anybody else who’s doing research because 

we’re spending for defense and military in protecting those countries so they can put money elsewhere. What level of taxation do 

my friends want to support the spending level they seek? And then 

are there other programs within the federal government that they 

might wish to reduce to backfill what they view as a reduction for 

the NSF? 

So these are some thoughts that I raise before I get to my question, but I appreciate that you’re here and actually for a forum to 

kind of vent on what solutions are being brought to the table because I’m just hearing problems brought to the table. 

The federal government has been funding STEM education for 

decades, Dr. Co ́rdova. Every year, larger emphasis is placed on the 

subject, and every year we hear how we’re falling further behind. 

I’m interested in knowing what have we learned from previous investments in STEM about what is working, what is not working, 

how can we be confident that new investments are being put in the 
50 

right place for the right activities? In other words, how can we become the most efficient, the most effective? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Great. Thank you. You have a whole range of 

things covered there. I will start with solutions because that’s 

where you’re going, and then I’ll ask Dr. Ferrini-Mundy to answer 

your last question about STEM and efficiencies and especially evaluation and assessment, which is our middle name. NSF is well 

known for doing that for all its programs. 

On solutions, that’s why we have structured a different budget 

for fiscal year 2019. We have a number of National Academy reports, reports out of committees of the National Science and Technology Council, advice of our advisory councils, and advice of the 

National Science Board that we need to be especially strategic in 

this day and age to meet challenges. And to deliver solutions for 

the country as quickly and as efficiently as possible. That is why 

we came up with this idea, which is now a structural idea in our 

budget of convergence accelerators to try to target those areas that 

are most ready because they have the most public interest and the 

most industry participation and really go after some near-term solutions in that space that we can bring to people very quickly. 

NSF welcomes all proposals. It’s what we call our core funding. 

And we fund blue-sky ideas. We take some risk. Some of them, like 

the LIGO that we funded for 40 years, after 40 years, they produce 

Nobel Prize-winning results. But we also need to reserve a part of 

our budget to be very strategic and very focused on solutions, so 

we’re doing that. And I hope that you will like the results that we 

get from this. 

Let me turn to Dr. Ferrini-Mundy about evaluation and assessment. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Thank you. So that’s a really important 

topic for us. We want to be sure that our investments in STEM 

education, are strategic and are likely to have impact. And for that 

reason, for many decades now, NSF has funded not only attempts 

at intervening and improving STEM ed but attempts to study and 

evaluate and assess the effects of those kinds of efforts. 

And I’ll cite just a few key results where we really have a solid 

basis in research to talk about change and improvement in STEM 

education. One is at the undergraduate level, and we have got 

academy reports that help with this. We’ve learned very firmly 

through research that to retain undergraduates in STEM, a very 

key principle is to engage them actively in their learning to be sure 

that instruction is really designed to bring those students in, to 

give them research experience as a part of what they are doing in 

their undergraduate courses, and to make sure that they have the 

chance to really see what STEM looks like in practice. 

That sounds fairly straightforward. It turns out to make that 

kind of a change in our nation’s universities is not straightforward, 

but it’s something that we know we should be headed toward. 

At K–12 we know a lot about teachers and about what will help 

teachers be most effective in getting kids to learn well, and some 

of that has to do with the nature of how they understand the 

STEM subjects and how particularly elementary teachers in such 

fundamental areas as mathematics are prepared to be effective in 

meeting children where they are and moving them toward deep un-
51 

derstanding of mathematics. So we have an array of findings, and 

we’re applying those in how we actually design our programs. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you. I’ve far exceeded my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Biggs. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. The gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, 

who may well be in contention for having one of the best attendance records of any Member of this Committee. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank you for that shout-out, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly appreciate the work the NSF has done over the years, 

together with the NIH and the NASA, really put America as an undisputed leader of science for the past half-century, but we see that 

that may be changing and we need to worry about that. 

I appreciate your statement, Dr. Co ́rdova, that we will not have 

the discoveries of tomorrow without the workforce of tomorrow, but 

then I see a 15 percent reduction in the graduate research fellowships and also research experience for undergraduates. Now, being 

a graduate student is pretty tough to make ends meet. To get 

grants is a very big deal. How can we kind of square that? Because 

we see when you’re a graduate student in the sciences, your contemporaries are out there making 10 times as much money as you 

are. And you get your Ph.D. and you become a postdoc, and again, 

they’re increasing and you’re slowly flat. So how can we sort of 

square that against a desire to have more people move into the 

STEM fields? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We fund graduate students in a great variety of 

ways. The biggest program that we have is for graduate research 

assistantships, and that comes through our grants programs when 

a professor is awarded a grant and they can support graduate students on that. That’s indeed how I was funded once upon a time. 

We have other programs like the Graduate Research Fellowships 

Program, which is a very—a distinctive program that we are very, 

very proud of. Until just a few years ago, we funded 1,000 students 

per year, and then we raised it for a few years to 2,000 and now 

it’s at 1500, which is still higher than it was before. 

We have introduced a new program called Research and 

Traineeship programs in specific areas like computer science and 

nanotechnology to train cohorts of graduate students. The 

traineeship of students and the ability to get into the research 

world at an early stage and be funded to do that research just 

couldn’t be more important. And you yourself were one of those students at one time, and all three of us were as well. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I didn’t mean to put you on the hot seat 

there, but I did want to raise that deduction in the research fellowships and undergraduate research. 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, could I just add to that? So China has made a 

commitment—and this is extraordinary—to devote 15 percent of 

their GDP to talent development, okay? And so part of that is going 

into—they don’t define exactly what talent development is in all 

ways, but certainly, the Thousand Talents program that they’ve 

implemented is to bring back Chinese scholars who have studied 

outside of China, to bring them back to China and set them up in 

a research career. 
52 

So one of—I had a postdoctoral fellow who worked with me, and 

he was hired back to a university in China, given a startup package that was the equivalent of a full professor. And he was—he got 

an assistant professorship position. So they are—you know, they 

are investing very aggressively to bring their talent back home—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. And—— 

Dr. ZUBER. —and we need to be aware of that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And I don’t want you to use all my time on the 

question. The opioid crisis, it’s multipronged. It’s a human behavioral issue. Is there research that the NSF could do that would help 

us understand and maybe deal with that crisis? And also you can 

add gun violence into that answer if you wish. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Our head of social and behavioral, economic research program Dr. Fay Cook is a member of the Administration’s 

Opioid Task Force, and they are working on interagency solutions 

to address this. We would be happy to look into particular research 

that we’re funding along those lines, Dr. McNerney, and get back 

to you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. A guess I have another half-minute. 

NSF has shown over time a commitment to cooperation with international scientists, but you’ve recently announced the closures of 

offices in Beijing, Brussels, and Tokyo by this summer. Can you 

kind of explain how that was decided? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. This was a strategic move to be more with the 

times as far as approaching the question of where could we make 

the biggest scientific advances internationally and international 

collaborations. Having one person at each of the three offices is arguably not the way to do that. It puts a huge demand on their intellectual capacity and also to cover an enormous sector of the 

globe, because we had only three offices. 

In fact, what we see more and more today, for example, in financial institutions, is that teams of experts go to countries to evaluate 

the possible portfolios to judge what is the quality of assets, what 

kinds of people are running the assets, and where collaborations 

that are win-win collaborations for all the countries involved and 

really contribute to intellectual merit can be had. 

So this is our plan. We have two groups already in formation— 

one will go to Europe and one to Asia—to study very specific areas 

which we think are vital for economic growth in our country. We 

want to see what other countries could bring to the table. We think 

it’s a better plan and is more in keeping with the times. It’s the 

way industry does it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well-answered. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. 

And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dunn, is recognized for his 

questions. 

Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank 

the panelists for being here. Dr. Co ́rdova, it’s great to see you 

again. I think last time we were together we were standing on an 

ice sheet in Greenland. It’s still pretty cold by my Floridian standards there, I’ll be honest with you. 

I will tell you that I’ve enjoyed the time I’ve had chatting about 

science with Dr. Co ́rdova. I’m sorry I haven’t had a chance to chat 

with the other panelists on a more personal basis. And certainly 
53 

the Chairman knows that I will spend the whole time here talking 

about science with you if I could, but we’re here to talk about the 

budget, so here we go. 

In all the major corporations and government agencies that I’ve 

been associated with, they have an audit process and plan for auditing the processes and the finances both inside an organization. 

I would like to know a little bit about your audit plan and processes. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. This is a perfect topic for my Chief Operating Officer. 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. And also possibly for our Board Chair to 

pick up because this is something that is done jointly with the National Science Foundation and the National Science Board, but our 

major audit is our annual financial statement audit. That occurs 

each year and is quite consuming for the agency overall in that we 

begin the minute that it’s completed with the preparation of materials and our interactions with the external auditors for— 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. So that’s good to hear. So you have external 

auditors as well—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes. 

Mr. DUNN. —as the GAO involved in this? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Absolutely. 

Mr. DUNN. I guess this is GAO, am I right? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Well, no, no, these are private—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. The inspector general has a private firm come in 

and do it—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Right. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —under the auspices of the inspector general. 

Mr. DUNN. Excellent. Excellent. And do you alternate those 

some—you know, a few years with one firm and then another 

firm—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. Yes, we have a firm now. 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, it was alternated last year. 

Mr. DUNN. Okay. Great. So this annual report, I’m not privy to 

that. Is that something that’s in our package? It’s not in the one 

that I received. No? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I believe it’s online. We can certainly send you—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. We can get you—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. And the agency of course writes its own response 

and the Board—— 

Dr. ZUBER. The—yes, the Inspector General’s Office comes up 

through the Oversight Committee of the National Science Board, 

and I—I’m happy to say that NSF has received an unqualified 

audit report so— 

Mr. DUNN. Excellent. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. For 20 years, we’ve had a clean report, and this 

year we had no significant deficiency. So, Chairman Smith, I’m 

very proud of that—— 

Mr. DUNN. That’s—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —our facilities has gone away so— 

Mr. DUNN. Yes, I think that’s important. You know, the taxpayers —we are constantly, in our offices, bombarded with complaints, outrageous complaints about, you know, this study was 
54 

studying something useless and meaningless and wasting taxpayer 

dollars. So how do you answer those complaints when you get 

them? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Okay. Well, it’s a little different than the financial 

report of some of our— 

Mr. DUNN. Oh, yes. I’m—I didn’t—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —financial systems but— 

Mr. DUNN. I mean—I think an audit should look at not just finances, also processes—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. 

Mr. DUNN. —and also product. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Right. And certainly, the Board is one of the best 

places for looking at the quality of what we’re doing and—— 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, so the—you know, the National Science Board 

oversees the Foundation, and the Director is a member of that 

board. So—and, you know, we look through—NSF compiles information on peer review, and that is given to the Board, and the 

Board looks at that with great scrutiny and always pressing the 

National Science Foundation to improve its processes because, you 

know, I think the process for peer review is quite robust, but it can 

always be improved. The Chairman has made it a point to keep 

after the agency on that, and we’re very serious in our oversight 

role. And NSF agrees that, you know, constant improvement is 

worthwhile. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. And Congress has to take a lot of credit because 

through reports like the AICA that they’ve gotten us to also look 

more intensely at our processes and to adopt new ones. So as a result of the AICA and the NAPA report and a report from our own 

Business and Operations Advisory Committee, I instituted the position, starting this past January, of Chief Officer for Research Facilities. This is one example because in the research facility areas 

we’ve had a number of critiques over the past few years. So this 

has dramatically—in just a few months’ time dramatically improved our oversight, and it allows me as Director to really see the 

agency and what’s happening and all the different facility areas immediately. 

Mr. DUNN. I’m running out of time, but I just would like to say 

I would like to see the report that the Board sees if we could on 

the finances processes and the products, but that’s very good. 

Thank you very much. It’s always good to see you, Doctor. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We will provide that to you. 

Mr. DUNN. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized. 

Mr. TONKO. Hey, thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our 

witnesses for being here today and for the very important work 

that you do. 

I want to be clear. We should not be flat-funding education, and 

we should not be flat-funding research. Flat funding for almost a 

decade will mean cuts certainly to critical programs. 

And I listened as Representative McNerney was quizzing you 

about the education cuts. I would have to say it goes further than 

that because the research cuts are a critical component. And I just 

want to do that through the eyes of a brilliant student that I rep-
55 

resent in the capital region of New York. And it illustrates exactly 

why education and research funding should be a national priority. 

Erin Byrne Rousseau is from Burnt Hills, New York, in the capital region, 20th Congressional District of New York. She grew up 

in the capital region and went to college at the University of Albany where she studied nanoscale science. She is currently working 

toward a Ph.D. in medical engineering at Harvard-MIT Health 

Sciences and Technology. Erin is a member of the Science Policy 

Initiative, a student group created to support the next generation 

of scientists and engineers and contributing to robust science-based 

policymaking. 

Erin is grateful for the federal support that allowed her to excel 

at her studies. As an undergrad, she was inspired by her university 

where many programs and research were made possible by federal 

funding such as NSF, NIH, DOE, and more. She is an NSF graduate research fellowship awardee, and the research she has worked 

on was possible in part from NIH funding. 

In the lab she used technology that would not exist if it were not 

for DOE funding. Erin is working on research to study the neurological basis of mental health disorders, and her research has implications for our understanding in the treatment of mental health 

and addiction. 

Erin is truly an impressive—is truly impressive, and she’s just 

at the beginning of what I believe is a great career. Erin thanked 

me for supporting funding for science and research, and, Erin, let 

me say thank you for all that you are doing for all of us and all 

you will do. 

And to my colleagues, we need more Erins who are going to be 

inspired to choose a STEM pathway and who will repay our nation’s commitment by moving science forward and changing our 

world. 

Dr. Co ́rdova, do you agree that NSF has the power to inspire our 

next generation of scientists and engineers? And if so, what effect 

would budget cuts or flat funding have on our future workforce? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, of course I think that NSF has the opportunity and the privilege to inspire the next generation of scientists 

and engineers, and they can come from anywhere. They can be 

Erins, they can be young children, they can be people looking for 

transitions in the jobs that they already have. 

And we’ve mentioned a couple of times here that there are a lot 

of proposals that are judged at the very highest level the rating of 

excellent that we simply are not able to fund within our budget. 

Mr. TONKO. I would hope that we would understand that as we 

put a budget together because these cuts are severe. Flat funding 

sounds kind, but it is brutal. 

I’m disappointed to see also that the large proposed cut that are 

levied at social, behavioral, and economics research, cuts to social 

and behavioral science will ripple out across many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research fields, hurting 

those fields as well. Behavioral sciences have had widespread positive impact on our nation and the world. In fact, every winner of 

the Nobel Prize in economics since 1997 has been a recipient of a 

social, behavioral, and economic sciences grant at the National 
56 

Science Foundation, the very divisions some suggest we should 

slash. 

We must continue our investment in behavioral sciences, and we 

should continue the long bipartisan tradition of funding and conducting research across the federal government. That research by 

very definition will have many failures, but failure is the down 

payment on success. Can you speak to the value of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate to issues of national 

importance? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, we have many, many examples of the huge 

impact of the social and behavioral sciences, and again, the National Academies report that came out last spring cited a long list 

of those. Among them are the auctioning of the electromagnetic— 

auction of the airwaves spectrum by the FCC, the Oregon kidney 

donor exchange programs that grew out of game theory, the predictive policing that is proving so helpful in some of our big cities 

and towns. They’ve done a lot of research on risk and resilience to 

natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes and other disasters 

that befall the planet. 

And in the areas of learning, they can be especially important in 

how children of different backgrounds and experiences, how they 

learn, and how they assimilate their knowledge and create new 

knowledge. And I turn to my colleague Dr. Zuber for some other 

examples. 

Dr. ZUBER. So studies—you know, there have been studies of 

why do children from excellent families go off and experience terrorism, okay? And so it turns out that it’s, you know—there’s research into that that has been useful in identifying that. And even, 

you know, young people who turn to terrorism from poor economic—the poorer part of the economic spectrum, it was found 

that, you know, there’s some moral and idealistic causes that are 

motivating them, you know, as opposed to economic causes. So it’s 

not just a case of getting them into a better economic circumstances, that one needs to look at moral imperatives that are 

different from terrorism, that are more productive, so that’s another example. 

Mr. TONKO. Well, I think the information that comes from 

neuroscientists and cognitive scientists can be very, very useful in 

responding to many of the needs we have out there. 

And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. [Presiding] I now recognize Mr. Hultgren for 

five minutes. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all so 

much for being here, grateful for your work and grateful for the opportunity for us to talk about the great work that NSF is doing and 

the really requirement that we must continue to fund and grow 

funding. 

I’ve had the chance to visit universities across the State of Illinois, have had the chance to work and see what NSF is doing there 

and other great places. I’ll actually be at Northern Illinois University this Saturday with my STEM Scholars. It’s 30 young people 

from around the seven counties that I represent that I meet with 

every single month, and a wonderful group, incredibly bright, very 

excited to—out of the 30—almost 30—I think about 18 or 19 of 
57 

them are young women. Ten or 11 are young men, so we’re encouraged by that, too, that we need everybody to be interested in 

science and STEM fields. 

But we’re going to be traveling to NIU where we are going to 

visit the Sub-Ice Rover, which was used to explore Antarctica, as 

well as the STEM maker lab. And our group is going to be only 

the second group to use new laser cutters, which we’re really excited about. 

I’ve had a good opportunity also through FIRST Robotics to meet 

with some great young people in my area, just a couple years ago 

met with a young woman from my district who was able to earn 

a full-ride scholarship to the University of Alabama in aerospace 

engineering. But one of her main concerns as I’ve continued to visit 

with her and talk with her and learn from her is for her to see 

peers who are very excited about STEM become discouraged and 

change degrees in the first few years of college, bright young people 

who were so used to getting straight A’s and now all of a sudden 

they’re getting B’s and C’s and decide this isn’t for me. You know, 

since I’m not getting an A, I must need to switch to some other 

course. 

So I just wanted to check, Dr. Co ́rdova, if maybe you could address what work is NSF doing to make sure that students going 

through these kinds of tough fields are able to maintain their passion and avoid washing out of these programs when maybe they 

aren’t getting the A’s that they were used to through high school? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I’m going to turn in just a moment to Dr. FerriniMundy. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. She’s very familiar with the research that we’re 

actually doing in this area. 

But so let me just rewind to when I was a University President 

and really worried about that, and I was worried about what we 

called gateway courses that you would, look to your left, look to 

your right, and one of the people sitting there won’t be there at the 

end of the semester kind of thing. 

So I think universities have a lot of responsibilities, and I think 

Dr. Zuber being from MIT will agree with me that ensuring that 

instructors are actually motivating students to get through rather 

than weeding them out. I think there have been a lot of programs 

that universities are changing in this direction. 

We had, in engineering at Purdue University, some engineering 

education department within the college of engineering, which is 

huge, that is specifically trying to look at new methodologies for 

getting students through these kinds of courses. Not just in engineering but university-wide. And I think when I see the retention 

rates and, as a University President, I would look at the retention 

rates between the first and the second year, and we increased that 

from the kind of low levels you’re describing to something like 97, 

98 percent of students would continue on. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Good. That’s great. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. So things are improving. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I can’t add a lot other than to say congratulations to you on your STEM Scholars. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thanks. 
58 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. That’s a wonderful investment of time. 

Mr. HULTGREN. It’s really been fun. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I should think so. You know, as Dr. Co ́rdova 

mentions, it’s those gateway courses that are quite critical for retention, and we are funding some interesting experiments in 

changing up the content of those courses—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. —starting with the statistics or quantitative 

reasoning kind of approach rather than always calculus, which is 

the tradition, and that’s showing some terrific results. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Good. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. And a variety of other approaches to helping faculty improve their instruction so that they are inspiring students and strengthening K–12 education. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. That’s so important, too. 

Let me jump on just in my last minute, Dr. Co ́rdova, as you 

know, accelerator physics is a field where industry and even our 

DOE labs find a short of shortage of trained workers. We’re only 

graduating about 15 Ph.D.’s a year. There are only a few universities that have accelerator physics programs to train these workers. Many of the students go out of their way to be able to get the 

schoolwork necessary to advance in these fields. 

We’re fortunate with NIU being relatively close to Fermilab having some opportunities there. Stanford has SLAC close by, which 

is great. But when a university is not near one of the national labs, 

many students actually have to take part in intense two-week accelerator school programs every summer where students come to 

one location to get their graduate-level training. 

It’s my understanding that NSF will be discontinuing their accelerator science program. It’s a program that was started in 2014 to 

address the workforce shortage and ensure that the United States 

was maintaining their position at the forefront of this field. This 

has not been a large program by any means, but I think it is an 

important one for the field. 

I’m also concerned that broader physics grants will not take into 

account the need for basic scientific research in accelerator science. 

I wonder if—I’m already over time—but maybe we can follow up 

some more, if you have a thought or two on this of what we can 

do to continue to see this as important and making sure that we 

have the people to fill these important roles? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. I can just say that I agree with you. Accelerator 

physics is what inspired me to become a physicist. We are of course 

a big participant in the CERN accelerator physics program—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Yes. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —as you’ve seen it. Fermilab, because we’ve seen 

each other there on tour—— 

Mr. HULTGREN. Right. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —that we are funding a lot of research there, 

Stanford University of course in their efforts. And I’ll follow up 

with—on the details of the accelerator science program. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you all. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. I’ll yield back. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize Mr. Foster for 

five minutes. 
59 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And thank you for your service. 

You mentioned that the NSF top line budget was overall flat, but 

that, I understand, was not the original proposal. That was the 

number they got adjusted after Democrats insisted on having proper funding for that section of the budget. And so what was the 

number before the final addendum came out? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Minus 30 percent. 

Mr. FOSTER. So a 30 percent cut, and then the Democrats negotiated it up to flat. Is that a fair summary of what happened? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. The President’s supplement came out, a $2.2 billion supplement, so that’s— 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, okay. You don’t have to—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. The caps were raised— 

Mr. FOSTER. —go into the details of the negotiation, but I think 

that’s an important point. 

Now, one of the features of your proposal is you’re going to be 

closing the NSF offices abroad, that you’ve announced I guess last 

month that offices in Tokyo, Brussels, and Beijing were being 

closed. You also said in your—in I guess all of your testimony is 

that the rest of the world is catching up and in some cases passing 

us. And so what is it—you know given that we’ll have a lot more 

to learn scientifically and in collaboration with other countries, 

what’s the motivation for closing the foreign—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. So exactly right, Dr. Foster. We have a lot more 

to learn, and we think that having one person in each of three offices abroad is not the most efficient way to learn about the science 

that we can really do in a high-quality, directed, focused way with 

other countries. That demands a lot of them in terms of intellectual 

breadth, in terms of covering a vast geography. We are adopting a 

practice that is well used in industry these days, which is sending 

expert teams of scientists and engineers from different parts of the 

country, and they’ll be accompanied by a couple of NSF people to 

certain areas where we think that there are assets that could be 

complementary to our assets. And the assets include physical ones, 

as well as human capital. 

We are looking in depth at what the nature of a collaboration 

could be. So take like quantum research or artificial intelligence or 

we’re disposing a team soon to look at synthetic biology. With careful background study of what are the areas and invitations from 

other countries to look at these, we think that we can have more 

win-win collaborations where we really understand what they bring 

to the table and what we do. It’s a new strategic approach. 

Mr. FOSTER. So this is not—doesn’t represent a drop in your interest in international collaboration—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. It represents— 

Mr. FOSTER. —or just a more—what you hope to be a more efficient deployment of resources for that? Okay. Thank you. That’s 

important. How much do you end up spending on research into 

handgun violence? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I don’t believe it’s a direct topic for us. We 

could look across various programs to see— 

Mr. FOSTER. Is it—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. —if there’s fundamental research. 
60 

Mr. FOSTER. —prohibited or do you have any calls for proposals 

at any point? 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. I would have to look into our background 

to— 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. If you could—— 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. —find out more about that. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, I’d be interested to know if you are also handcuffed in this area, as other areas of federal research. 

Dr. FERRINI-MUNDY. My hunch would be we have some fundamental social science research that would certainly inform questions in that area, but I would have to check to be certain. 

Mr. FOSTER. Yes, but even prohibitions on chameleon basic statistics, for example, are things that we run into in other areas. 

You also mentioned the workforce thing and the need to make 

sure that we keep the best and brightest of other—from other countries that we educate here. And, Dr. Co ́rdova, you’re a physicist. 

Have you ever in your career had two first-author Physical Review 

Letters published in the same year? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. No, I published in The Astrophysical Journal. 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. All right. Well, same question, yes. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Okay. Same question, have I ever had two papers— 

Mr. FOSTER. Two in a year—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —published in— 

Mr. FOSTER. —just—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Oh, absolutely. 

Mr. FOSTER. As the first author yourself? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. As a first author probably. I could— 

Mr. FOSTER. Okay. Well, no, it just—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes, I published— 

Mr. FOSTER. —because—— 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. —a lot in my day. 

Mr. FOSTER. —I encountered a situation—okay. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Yes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Well, I encountered a situation recently where you, 

as I, have probably penned letters for an Einstein visa for, you 

know, very talented people. Yes, I see some nods from the other— 

that—and what you see—you know, you’re in this heartbreaking 

situation where someone that you just know should be a keeper 

and you can’t—the one that I was unsuccessful at getting recently 

had two—been first author in two Physical Review Letters, a 

postdoc—as a postdoc, was first author in two PRLs which are, you 

know, the premier peer-reviewed journal. And yet that was insufficient to get an Einstein visa. 

And so my question is when you see—you know, in the presence 

of, you know, that sort of failure I think that we’ve all had from 

time to time in getting people permission to stay and then you read 

that, you know, a model was given the Einstein visa for probably 

non-STEM-associated skills. You know, do you—does it strike you 

that we’re just way off the mark in what we’re trying to accomplish 

with getting high-skilled immigrants into the United States? 

Dr. ZUBER. Excuse me. Thank you for the question, Dr. Foster. 

So I don’t know the qualifications of any of the other people who, 

you know, were awarded the Einstein visa, so I can’t really do a 
61 

comparison because there are needs in many different areas, but 

I will certainly say that the individual that you mentioned, it is— 

that’s an absolutely top journal in the field, and, you know, obviously that individual is very accomplished. 

What I would say is that certainly within this country there is 

additional capacity to keep the top highest-achieving individuals 

from all over the world and in fact, you know, that has been our 

modus operandi in this country to attract the best and the brightest from around the world. And I hope that we continue to do that. 

Mr. FOSTER. And find a way to keep them. And thank you. I 

yield back. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

And I now recognize Dr. Babin for five minutes. 

Mr. BABIN. Yes, ma’am. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And 

thank you, witnesses, for being here and for your valuable testimony. 

And, Dr. Co ́rdova, good to see you again. And I’d like to ask you 

a couple of questions if you don’t mind. The United States is one 

of the most if not the most innovative and technologically advanced 

nation in the world, yet we lag behind other industrial nations in 

ensuring that American students receive the requisite skills for 

success in a 21st-Century workforce. How would you each—I’m 

asking you, too, Dr. Zuber—both of you. How would you each define success in the field of STEM studies and computer science education, and do you think we can achieve this and when? Let’s start 

with Dr. Co ́rdova. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Clearly, we must because it is a skill that everyone 

really needs to have for all sorts of occupations, not only STEM 

alone. We have a great variety of programs that we fund over all 

ages from K–12, undergraduate, graduate, postdoc, and early career and beyond to try to give people the opportunity to really increase their STEM and computer science capabilities. In fact, our 

real goal is to provide access to everyone, and that’s why we call 

one of our programs Computer Science for All. 

We also have interestingly for the past 24 years Advanced Technological Education program that is mainly housed in our community colleges nationwide. Thus far, we’ve sponsored 1,500 awards 

and have over $300 million in industry support because there are 

partnerships with industry in retraining workers for skilled jobs. 

And a lot of that curriculum has to do with computer science as 

well. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And, Dr. Zuber? 

Dr. ZUBER. And so let me just add one can look at computer 

science a couple of different ways. There is an—advancing that specific field, okay, and then there is infusing the results of that, those 

skills, into a whole variety of other different fields. And so both of 

those actually need to occur, and they need to occur not only at the 

level of students who get four-year degrees but also in what we call 

the skilled technical workforce, so workers who—we call this STEM 

awareness, okay, who don’t necessarily have a STEM degree, but 

virtually any job that you can think of today—many—a whole variety of jobs that you can think of require some amount of STEM 

skill and computation skill or computer skill, so even, you know, 

working at a grocery store— 
62 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Dr. ZUBER. —you know, the electronic readers. And so this is addressed in the ATE program, which deals with community colleges, 

and it’s also a focus of the National Science Board to look at these 

skilled technical workforces to look at what it’s going to take to 

provide points of entry to students at various levels to get into 

these programs to get training and then to realize that there needs 

to be, you know, retraining and retraining— 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Dr. ZUBER. —to improve skills. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. I need to ask one more question, get it in before my time is expired. I saw on the news this past weekend that 

some American scientists were stranded in Antarctica when a U.S. 

vessel could not reach them. And fortunately, NSF, working with 

Argentina partners who had an icebreaker and a helicopter, were 

able to successfully rescue them. First, congratulation on the rescue; but second, it brings up whether or not the United States has 

sufficient icebreaking capacity. What is the status of NSF’s efforts 

to ensure the continued availability of an icebreaker for our polar 

programs? Dr. Co ́rdova? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you. We have a number of vessels with different icebreaking capability. None with very deep icebreaking capability, so we rely on the U.S. Coast Guard for that. We lease time 

from them in order to help us to support our mission. I know that 

there is some funding to the Coast Guard, perhaps it’s in the proposal stage, but I think there is some advanced funding for them 

to look into having more capability in this area. 

Our preferred mode is not to own a deep-ice-cutting vessel—and 

they’re not research vessels, but they are for that purpose—but to 

keep renting them. And otherwise, we have, as I said, a number 

of actual research vessels that have very modest cutting capability. 

Thank you for mentioning that example. We are very happy that 

five researchers are fine. 

Mr. BABIN. All right. My time is expired, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. 

And I now recognize Mr. Beyer for five minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank all of you for being willing to come into a public 

forum on the Ides of March. You’re very brave. 

You know, the—with appropriate respect for the Chairman’s 

criticisms of specific research awards, the elephant in the room is 

still the flat budget. You know, nine years in a row the structural— 

the steadily falling percentage of excellent projects approved, 

United States losing its global leadership to China and perhaps to 

others, you know, I think this is the most necessary oversight responsibility the Science Committee has is to keep American science 

strong, which means keeping the National Science Foundation 

strong. 

So, Dr. Zuber, a cultural question for you as Chair of the National Science Board. What can you do, what can we do, what 

should we be doing to build public support for additional federal 

funding for the National Science Foundation? Especially given that 

our lives are so transformed by the science that you have devel-
63 

oped, why don’t we value it? How do we increase that sense of 

value in our lives? 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, so I think—you know, so, first of all, thank you 

for those comments, and thank you for your support on this crucially important topic for the Nation. I think the Director and her 

team have taken great efforts to try to make the science that NSF 

does understandable broadly to people in the country, but there’s 

still a lot to be learned. And I think—I frankly think that NSF is 

an underappreciated agency for what it does. So people have heard 

of the NIH because they know it does medical research, and people 

may have heard of the NSF, but they don’t realize the—just the 

broad scope of science that it covers, everything from, you know, 

the polar science to high-energy physics, you know, to astrophysics, 

you know, to the earth sciences, biological sciences, and beyond. 

So one of the things that I say every time you see a NASA image 

of space that has a NASA logo in the center—and we encourage the 

NSF to start getting the word out of, you know, branding NSF. So 

when you—you know, when you go out and you have conversations 

with people and you let them know the kind of work that NSF 

does, you know, they generally seem broadly supportive, but the 

question is, you know, with all of the noise that we have around 

us today, how do you reach those people and get the message? And 

we’re always looking for opportunities to do that. 

Mr. BEYER. It sounds like getting the most robust communications department would help. 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. Maybe sponsor a NASCAR vehicle with NSF on the 

side. 

Dr. ZUBER. Well, some of the videos that the Office of Legislative 

and Public Affairs have put together have been absolutely spectacular and have won national awards, and that’s been very helpful. 

Mr. BEYER. There’s an old political idiom that nothing happens 

in politics unless you tell somebody about it. This may be the same 

thing here. 

So on that line, this may be a dangerous suggestion, so forgive 

me for a dangerous suggestion, but it may make sense at some 

level to have a nonpartisan, nonideological person look at the 

grants one final time before they go out just to make sure that we 

don’t put a Chairman, whether a Democrat or Republican Chairman, in the position of saying, ‘‘That sure doesn’t sound legitimate,’’ you know, a nonscientific eye as something that’s going to 

go out to the general public. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Largely because of this Committee I think we have 

really upped our transparency and accountability processes, and 

we’re very sensitive to titles and abstracts because we—unlike 

many other agencies, we publish everything online, so it is really 

open and people can see immediately what it looks like. We have 

now a non-technical abstract, which is geared towards public consumption. We think that we have really improved our readability 

of what we’re doing and also brought cognizance to the entire agency that people are looking and they’re really evaluating the value 

of the benefit to the nation just on a few sentences that are there 

describing the research and its potential benefits. We have taken 

a lot of steps in that direction. 
64 

As far as your suggestion of whom to have on the committees 

that finally approve that, I think that’s an interesting suggestion 

and I will take it back and we’ll consider it. Thank you. 

Mr. BEYER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I now recognize myself for five 

minutes. 

I think we earlier had some students from Paul VI High School. 

I don’t know if we have any left, but I thank them for joining us. 

And I wanted to start out by thanking Dr. Co ́rdova for your 

strong statement about zero tolerance for sexual harassment that 

you recently made in light of some of the things that this Committee, as well as others, have looked at. So as you may know, we 

had a hearing on sexual harassment in science, and sort of the role 

that some of the grants and people who really can determine your 

future in terms of whether you’re going to get into the fields that 

you want, and how that’s impacted because of harassment. 

And I was—I think we also—we didn’t get into it as deep as we 

might, but I think it’s something we do need to look at more, the 

long-term wage impact because we know that when women are 

harassed in a specific field, they are very likely to leave that field 

and not get back into it, particularly when you have some avenues 

here that if they’re closed off, you may not have someplace else to 

go. 

I was wondering if you could just—in light of your very strong 

statement—I just wanted to give you the opportunity to address 

that, and maybe for the others, since we are blessed to have three 

women panelists here today, I thought it might be a good opportunity to hear directly from you. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. Thank you very, very much Chairwoman Comstock, for your passion, your interest, for having the hearing, and 

of course we all listened to the hearing remotely, and it was very 

good to get it all out on the table. Some very, very important points 

were made. 

The important thing to recognize about our statement—and now, 

of course, our statement has turned into a notice in the Federal 

Register that is open for public comment for 60 days, and we will 

be absorbing all those comments as we go. We’re not waiting to the 

end of the period, so we’ve already started that. We also have robust processes to send compliance team reviews to universities to 

say, ‘‘Hey, are you doing what you’re supposed to do?’’ And we review their cases. The team talks with a lot of individuals at all levels of the university from the students to the administration and 

all, and that’s—— 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. I was wondering, do we have percentages—and 

my apologies if I should know—what percentage of these grants 

and projects are female-led? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. We can certainly find that out. I mean, I know 

we—well, for one thing, in—earlier, we talked a little bit about the 

merit—annual merit review report that the agency produces for the 

National Science Board, and there we have the proposals as a function of gender and also minorities’ representation that are given to 

us in how many we approve, and so we can then make the assump-
65 

tion that if you’re the lead investigator, that you are also leading 

the research. 

So yes, we have the statistics, and actually women do very well. 

I think about one percentage point higher success rate than male 

gender. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. All right. And, Dr. Zuber? 

Dr. ZUBER. Yes, so if I could just add, so the National Science 

Board fully supported the Director in wanting to get out ahead of 

this issue, and we’re particularly—there was a lot of discussion 

about this, but we were incredibly supportive of the fact that it’s 

very, very important to have due process, but if a university has 

a process and an investigation takes place where it’s—enough evidence is deemed that it goes to a full-out investigation, that it 

needs to be reported to NSF. And this is because it might make 

sense to get a substitute principal investigator in there, and this 

is to really, you know, care about the personal situation of the person who has been experiencing the harassment. 

We consider this to be a real step forward, and NSF as an agency 

has really taken the lead on this. And what I hope is other agencies I think are also looking at policies, and I hope we don’t get a 

different policy for every agency. I hope that—you know, I personally think that the NSF policy—it’s very thought-out because, you 

know, the Director had a great deal of experience unfortunately in 

dealing with issues like this in—you know, on panels and such that 

have made recommendations throughout her career. And—but it 

would be very cumbersome if all the agencies just came up with 

different ways of dealing with it. 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. And can I say one more thing? This is only the beginning for us, that we are having biweekly meetings that Dr. 

Ferrini-Mundy chairs within the agency to talk about what else we 

can do in this area, for example, codes of conduct at all our field 

sites, whether it’s Antarctica or environmental field site, we have 

hundreds of them. And are all the codes of conduct all start with 

similar language? And then do they fulfill the basic needs, namely 

that if something happens at a field site, that you know exactly 

what is to be posted in an open, public place where to go, how to 

get help, and how to follow through. 

We are just consistently going to keep working on this until we’re 

satisfied that we have done everything we can, and we’re hoping 

that in the public comment period there will be even more suggestions about what else we might—— 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. So this information will be out there so the students, the young women themselves, will just have more of an 

awareness about it, where to go, how to proceed if something happens? 

So I know as we’re talking about the pipeline, you know, I think 

this week I was at a STEM charter school, and they had a STEM 

club that had been started by the young girls there. Then they 

we’re teaching the boys how to have one, too, so they had the first 

one. 

And fourth-graders, Coco and Miriam, who escorted me around 

their lab and told me about all their programs, it just was a real— 

I think we do have a different atmosphere going on in so many of 

our schools—these kids were showing me the first-graders who 
66 

were coding already, and you really don’t see a difference at that 

age because the kids haven’t learned to have any differences yet 

hopefully, and they had a lot of great role models like we have 

here. 

So just, you know, any way we can get that message through and 

then sustain it so that we are keeping that pipeline because it really did seem, as we went through the process of the hearing—and 

if you watched it, you saw it—but the wage gap could very much 

be a much bigger part connected to sexual harassment than we 

have recognized in the past. Okay. Well, I think I am up with my 

time but—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, I’ll—it’s playing cleanup here. It’s been a delight to listen to all of you. And this is one of the most important 

agencies in the United States really, I mean, not always appreciated but driving innovation and allowing for really smart people 

to research and to lead us forward to better times. 

I think we’re sort of at a very serious inflection point in our country, and you addressed some of the issues, are other nations competing more vigorously, the flat budget for multiple years, that 

with a flat budget, costs increase, you can buy less. I’m concerned— 

we have had—this is a figure I got from the Judiciary Committee 

staff—since 2015 a 40 percent drop in foreign students into the 

United States, which is not a piece of good news when it comes to 

science research. And so when you put that altogether, you’ve got— 

you know, we used to have where we were the center of science research, people from all over the world coming here, robust funding 

for science, and now a very different picture. 

So I have some very serious concerns. I know that you all are 

doing your very best to make the resources that have been made 

available go as far as they can. This is not a criticism of your fine 

efforts. 

One of the things I’m interested in, Dr. Co ́rdova, is how many 

of the highest-rating—highest-rated proposals don’t get funded? 

What’s the sheer number, do you know? 

Dr. CO ́ RDOVA. It’s almost $4 billion worth of proposals per year 

we say are on the cutting room floor. They are rated excellent, 

which is the top rating or very good to excellent. I would say excellent is about $2 billion, about half of that, the other $2 billion between very good and excellent, but definitely worthy of funding, 

and we are not able to fund them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. At some point I remember George Miller, who 

spent so many years on our Education and Labor Committee, went 

over and read the proposals that couldn’t be funded, and it put him 

into a depression for a while of all of the things we could have 

learned had we been able to actually award funding to the most 

meritorious proposals. I’d like at some point to see if we couldn’t 

organize members of the Science Committee who have an interest 

to do that, take a look at what got left on the cutting room floor. 

And just a final comment, I think Congressman Beyer was mentioning having somebody look at a last cut as not scientists. Here’s 

I think sometimes a problem. At least the scientists I know tend 

to be—you know, really smart people have great senses of humor, 

and you can have a very serious subject matter and a light touch 

on the title that may belie the seriousness of the inquiry. So it may 
67 

be that the lighthearted titles may want a review because they 

could be misleading, and that’s just the thought that I have because smart people do tend to have a great sense of humor. 

So with that, I’m going to close this hearing with these comments. I think we’re very, very lucky as a nation to have all of you, 

the service that you are providing to our country. I’m grateful to 

you for it, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. COMSTOCK. Thank you. And I would second that again. 

And I thank the witnesses for their testimony and the Members 

for their questions. And the record will remain open for two weeks 

for additional written comments and written questions from Members. And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(69) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
70 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. France Co ́rdova 
71 

2. I am concerned about the proposed cuts to the Graduate Research Fellowships Program, 

the National Research Traineeships, and Research Experiences for Undergraduates. I 

assume these cuts were at least in part to find more funding in the budget for the Big 

Ideas. In what ways will the Big Ideas and other convergence efforts be used to support 

education and dedicated training programs and/or funds for graduate and undergraduate 

students? 

Answer: As we look ahead to the coming decades, NSF is considering the bold questions 

that will drive NSF's long-term agenda for research and education investment. This is the 

reason NSF developed the l 0 Big Ideas. These ideas capitalize on what NSF does best: 

catalyze interest and investment in fundamental research, which is the basis for 

discovery, invention and innovation. The Big Ideas will require collaborations with 

industry, private foundations, other federal agencies. scientific societies and education 

partners ranging from K -12 systems to community colleges to universities. Funding the 

research that will advance these ideas and the efforts to develop the talented people who 

can pursue them will push forward the frontiers of U.S.-based science and engineering; 

contribute innovative approaches to solving some of the most pressing problems the 

world faces; and lead to unimagined discoveries that can change lives. 

Indeed, through the Big Ideas, NSF is funding efforts to determine how to best educate 

the next generation of scientists. All the ideas will require a changing future workforce, 

making education and lifelong learning important priorities, and all will invest in the 

preparation of that workforce. 

Graduate and undergraduate education continues to be an agency-wide priority and the 

major source of support for students across the foundation is through research 

assistantships on research grants. NSF also supports undergraduate students and graduate 

education through programs identified in the fiscal year (FY) 2019 CoSTEM inventory 

foundat:~~~~~c~~~~~~~~~-o~~~~,~~~~.~~· 

3. As recently as late 2016, the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate 

(SBE) was planning to lead the Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier Big 

Idea that they originally proposed, not the Engineering Directorate. In the Fall2016 SBE 

Advisory Committee meeting, the SBE Director, Dr. Faye Cook, discussed this Big Idea 

at length, including the important role of SBE research. But in your budget you propose 

to make the Engineering Directorate the lead for this Big Idea, and as lead, Engineering 

controls the $30 million in funding. 

a. What do you see as SBE's role in the Future of Work at the Human-Technology 

Frontier Big Idea? 

Page 2 of14 
72 

b. Given the persistent cultural chasm between engineers and social scientists, how 

will you ensure that SBE is a valued and real partner in this Big Idea, both 

intellectually and in terms of funding? 

~: In a world of converging disciplines and interdependencies between fields of 

research, NSF is proposing to invest in innovative areas of research that integrate the 

social, behavioral and economic sciences with other areas of basic science and 

engineering research. NSF's Big Idea: The Future of Work at the Human Technology 

Frontier (FW-HTF) aims to catalyze interdisciplinary science and engineering research to 

understand and build the human-technology relationship; design new technologies to 

augment human performance; illuminate the emerging sociotechnological landscape; and 

foster lifelong and pervasive learning with technology. To ensure the success of the 

future human-technology partnership, SBE scientists will be deeply engaged in this 

research so that the human and social aspects are appropriately understood and 

incorporated. 

NSF's FY 2019 investments in The Future of Work will build upon a foundation of 

research from core programs across the agency as well as targeted FY 2018 investments. 

Under the stewardship concept that NSF will employ to manage the Big Ideas, while 

budget management and reporting will be the responsibility of the directorate to which 

the $30 million is assigned for a given Big Idea, each directorate/office that is a co-lead 

will be providing leadership and oversight. Therefore, while the $30 million for this Big 

Idea is requested under the Engineering Directorate, the SBE Directorate will be a colead and the Big Idea will be overseen and managed collaboratively. 

The recent solicitation Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier: Advancing 

Cognitive and Physical Capabilities (FW -HTF) 18-548 explains: "Because research 

proposals must establish their potential to shape and improve the future of work, principal 

investigators are urged to assemble cross-disciplinary teams capable of evaluating the 

nature of, and the potential for, social impact.'' 

4. The budget proposal includes a cut to the STEM+Computing Partnerships program by 

over $19 million, a 37 percent drop from spending in FY 2017. The proposal explains 

this reduction by stating that STEM+C will not run a new competition in FY 2019, but 

will provide co-funding to other programs. Please explain the changes NSF is making to 

its approach to supporting computer science teaching and education research. 

~:NSF supports computer science education through a range of programs that 

provide research and develop resources for preK-12 teaching and learning. The STEM+C 

program was one of several NSF programs that address the integration of computational 

thinking and computing activities in early childhood through high school. 

Page 3 of 14 
73 

As computing has become integral to the practice of the STEM disciplines, researchers 

are increasingly addressing the immediate challenges facing preK-12 STEM integrated 

with computing, as well as challenges that anticipate radically different structures and 

functions ofpreK-12 teaching and learning. For these reasons, NSF released a Dear 

Colleague Letter encouraging the submission of Discovery Research PreK -12 (DRK-12) 

research proposals studying the integration of computing and/or computational thinking 

in disciplinary STEM learning and teaching. In FY 2019, NSF plans to invest in research 

and development supporting computer science education, including research on 

computational thinking and the integration of computing with other STEM disciplines, as 

follows: 

• Computer Science for All: Researcher Practitioner Partnerships provides high school 

teachers with the support they need to teach rigorous computer science courses and 

K-8 teachers with needed instructional materials and preparation to integrate 

computer science and computational thinking into their courses. 

• Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers supports projects to 

promote preK-12 students' interests and capacities to participate in the STEM and 

information communications technology workforce of the future. 

• STEM+C recently released a Program Description inviting research and development 

proposals related to new approaches to pre-K-12 STEM teaching and learning related 

to Harnessing the Data Revolution, Convergence Research and the Future of Work at 

the Human-Technology Frontier. 

• The CyberCorps®: Scholarship for Service program at NSF and the National 

Security Agency support GenCyber, a program that sponsors summer camps across 

the nation designed for elementary, middle and high school students and teachers that 

focus on engaging the learners with sound cybersecurity principles and teaching 

techniques. 

• Programs such as El-IR Core Research, Discovery Research PreK-12 (DRK-12), and 

Advancing Informal STEM Learning seek to significantly enhance the learning and 

teaching of STEM, including computer science and computational thinking. NSF 

released a Dear Colleague Letter encouraging the submission of DRK-12 research 

proposals studying the integration of computing and/or computational thinking in 

disciplinary STEM learning and teaching. 

Together, these programs aim to provide all U.S. students the opportunity to participate 

in computer science and computational thinking education at the preK-12levcls. NSF's 

Page 4 of14 
74 

focus on computer science education addresses an important workforce development 

need, and enables students to develop critical skills and competencies in problem-solving, 

critical thinking, creativity and collaboration that will help them excel in today's 

increasingly digital and computational world. 

5. In response to Congressional direction in the American Innovation and Competitiveness 

Act, NSF released a request for information on the demand for mid-scale research 

infrastructure funding opportunities last year. What insights did you gain from 

submissions to the RFI regarding the need for mid-scale infrastructure projects? 

a. Do some research disciplines have higher demand for mid-scale research 

infrastructure than others do? If so, which? 

b. The FY 2019 budget proposal requests $60 million for Mid-Scale Research 

Infrastructure and includes it as one of the Foundation's ten Big Ideas. How many 

proposals does NSF expect to fund with this budget? 

Answer: In 2017, NSF issued a request for information on potential mid-scale research 

infrastructure projects in the $20 million to $100 million range. NSF received nearly 200 

replies from areas of science covered by all ofNSF's seven directorates. Approximately 

60 percent of the replies were predominantly associated with the Directorate for 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (about 30 percent) and the Directorate for 

Geosciences (about 30 percent), with the remaining 40 percent distributed among the 

other five directorates. 

As you note, mid-scale research infrastructure is included as one of NSF's Big Ideas and 

the Administration has requested $60 million for mid-scale research infrastructure in the 

FY 2019 budget request. Separate tracks within the mid-scale program will fund 

acquisition, design/development and implementation. NSF will also conduct strategic 

discussions of the long-term development of mid-scale research infrastructure with our 

advisory committees and the National Science Board. An increased investment in midscale research infrastructure will be used to continue to span the "mid-scale gap." NSF 

will invest in instrumentation above the current $4 million upper limit of the Major 

Research Instrumentation (MRI) program as well as funding the design and development 

of mid-scale research infrastructure with potential costs ranging up to the Major Research 

Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) lower limit of $70 million. Our 

preliminary estimates are that NSF might fund 3-8 instrumentation acquisition proposals 

above the current MRI threshold and 8-15 design and development proposals for larger 

capabilities with construction costs ranging up to the $70 million MREFC threshold. 

These numbers would depend on the exact contents of a solicitation that is currently 

under development, as well as the quality of proposals received. 

Page 5 of14 
75 

6. During the hearing, Representative Babin asked about NSF's need for icebreaking 

capabilities in Antarctica. Please elaborate on the role of icebreakers in NSF's ability to 

support science in Antarctica, and the importance of building and maintaining reliable 

U.S. icebreaking capabilities for that purpose. 

Answer: Presidential Memorandum 6646 ( 1982), directs NSF to manage all United 

States activities in Antarctica as a single, integrated program, making Antarctic research 

possible for scientists supported by NSF and by other agencies. The United States 

Antarctic Program (USAP) research activity supported by NSF also supports leadership 

by the U.S. Department of Stale in the governance of the continent and Southern Ocean 

under the aegis of the Antarctic Treaty System. NSF's Oftlce of Polar Programs (OPP) 

supports investments in research and education and provides support for research 

infrastructure, such as permanent stations and temporary field camps. OPP's Antarctic 

Sciences Section supports research to 1) expand fundamental knowledge of the Antarctic 

region; 2) improve understanding of interactions between the Antarctic region and global 

Earth systems; and 3) utilize unique characteristics of the Antarctic continent as an 

observing platform. Research that crosses and combines disciplinary perspectives and 

approaches is encouraged. 

The USCGC Polar Star (W AGB-1 0) is America's only operational heavy icebreaker and 

operates annually in the Antarctic to break a channel through McMurdo Sound to open a 

passage for the USAP resupply ship and fuel tanker. A heavy icebreaker is required 

because Antarctic sea ice at McMurdo is routinely 2 or more meters (6 feet) thick and can 

become as much as 6 meters (20 feet) thick at times. No other U.S. vessel has this 

icebreaking capability. Polar Star is 122 meters (400 feet) in length. The ship can carry 

two helicopters, accommodates 20 scientists and has a crew of 154. The ship was built in 

1976, is home ported in Seattle, Washington, and is scheduled in cooperation with the 

University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System. On occasion, USAP must 

contract with a commercial icebreaker to help with channel breaking when the Polar Star 

is unavai !able. This creates uncertainty and dependence on foreign nations for 

icebreaking services. The 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill (P .L. I 15-441) provided 

$150,000,000 to the United States Navy under Shipbuilding and Conversion for design 

and preliminary activities to acquire a polar icebreaker. When completed, this vessel will 

enable the U.S. to have dependable icebreaking capabilities into the future, since the 

Polar Star is past her life expectancy. 

Page 6 of14 
76 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2019" 

Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Questions submitted by Representative Randy Hultgren, House Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology 

1. It is my understanding that NSF will be discontinuing their Accelerator Science Program. 

This program was started in 2014 to address the workforce shortage in the field and 

ensure that the United States was maintaining our position at the forefront of this field. It 

is my concern that broader physics grants will not take into account the need for basic 

scientific research in accelerator science. 

a. What was the rational for this decision by NSF? 

b. How will NSF be addressing the workforce needs for trained accelerator scientists 

and operators? 

c. How does NSF plan to address the research needs of this community through 

other grants if the program is discontinued? 

Answer: The accelerator science program at NSF was launched to promote research at 

universities on basic accelerator science questions that are not tied to specific accelerator 

designs or possible upgrades. Mechanisms exist for funding these latter activities; for 

example, as part of mid-scale research infrastructure efforts. 

A primary goal of the program was to encourage the community to think about truly 

innovative approaches to accelerator design. An analysis of the most competitive 

proposals received during the three years the program held a competition showed a trend 

toward more incremental efforts driven toward improving existing designs, not the truly 

innovative approaches the division had hoped for. Therefore, the Physics Division of 

NSF's Mathematics and Physical Sciences Directorate concluded that the program was 

not sufficiently achieving its primary goal, certainly not to a sufficient extent to warrant a 

separate, stand-alone program. The few proposals that do address this goal can be 

evaluated by the competitive review process in the division disciplinary programs most 

closely related to the suggested innovation rather than by maintaining a stand-alone 

program. Some examples of disciplinary programs include the Nuclear Physics, 

Elementary Particle Physics and Plasma Physics programs. 

Page 7 ofl4 
77 

The Office of High Energy Physics at the DOE has been given the responsibility for the 

stewardship of accelerator science in the US. As part of this effort the DOE has created 

the Accelerator Stewardship program. Information about the program can be found at 

hlli?2l~~~Jmrum.Y!2ls2Lr:f~r.£h~&kill!!:!E:2.~Jlli!.illiJQ/_. The DOE Office of 

High Energy Physics also funds a special program in Advanced Technology R&D, 

J:illNJ..~lli.I1.fi~~:gyJI&>Wm:L.tt:~E£l1L<J&YillJ';..<::SJL:l~C:ffill.QJi2gy:IQi.. A significant fraction 

of this program is directed toward accelerator development. 

Page 8 of 14 
78 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 20 19" 

Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Questions submitted by Representative Bill Posey, House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technologv 

I. Has the NSF published any studies on planetary defense? If so, can you send them to the 

committee? 

Answer: NASA is the lead agency on planetary defense through its Planetary Defense 

Coordination Office (PDCO). The PDCO exercises that coordination through the 

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) chartered Interagency Working Group 

for Detecting and Mitigating the Impact of Earth-bound Near-Earth Objects (DAMIEN). 

NSF is represented on DAMIEN by the Division Director and Deputy Division Director 

of NSF's Division of Astronomical Sciences, because of the value of NSF-supported, 

ground-based observing facilities in the detection and characterization of near-Earth 

objects (NEOs). Attached is the report on NEO strategy from the NSTC DAMIEN 

working group, published in December 2016. 1 

NSF owns and operates several relevant facilities, including the Arecibo Observatory, 

Green Bank Observatory and the future Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), 

currently under construction in Chile. One of the three primary missions of Arecibo 

Observatory is to characterize and improve determination of the orbits of previously 

discovered solar system objects, including NEOs and potentially hazardous asteroids. 

This mission, funded by the NASA PDCO, utilizes the Arecibo Observatory planetary 

radar, sometimes in tandem with NSF's Green Bank Observatory and/or NASA's 

Goldstone Deep Space Communication Complex. 

The LSST, with funding support from NSF and the Department of Energy, will make 

significant contributions to discovering and tracking NEOs. To ascertain the effectiveness 

ofLSST in fulfilling NASA's mandate to discover NEOs 140 meters and larger, a study 

was conducted by a team of NSF-funded scientists closely associated with the LSST, 

including scientific staff from the LSST project and NSF's National Optical Astronomy 

Observatory. The pre-publication version of that report is attached.2 NASA also 

requested a complementary study from a group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 

which reached a similar conclusion, that the LSST can move the completeness level of 

NEO discoveries in the 140-mcter to 300-meter size range from 42 percent to 73 percent 

during its I 0-year mission. 

Page 9 of14 
79 

2. What resources has the NSF developed on the opioid crisis and violence in schools? 

~: In October 2017, the Administration officially declared the opioid crisis a 

national public health emergency and signed a Presidential Memorandum outlining the 

efforts the federal government would undertake to address the crisis. As part of that 

important work, the Office of Science and Technology Policy initiated the Opioid Fast 

Track Action Committee (Committee) to coordinate health-focused federal government 

research and development activities related to the opioid crisis. NSF co-chairs the 

Committee, which will connect research and development efforts across the executive 

branch and link them with private sector and intergovernmental capabilities and needs. 

NSF has a long history of supporting interdisciplinary basic research that spans the 

biological sciences; social, behavioral and economic sciences; mathematical and physical 

sciences; engineering; computer science; and education. NSF is in the excellent position 

of being able to leverage this culture of convergence and join our colleagues at missiondriven agencies to contribute to combating the opioid crisis. NSF has supported many 

critical studies that have contributed to remarkable advances in a range of powerful 

technologies applied to measure, interrogate and repair brain function. New empirical 

methods and new datasets used by labor and health economists could be used to assess 

long-term developmental outcomes, and studies of both legal and illegal markets for 

opioids will help to understand how various policy alternatives can restrict access to 

illicit drugs. Quantitative-based analysis of these data is becoming increasingly important 

to understand the causes, pathways, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of addiction. 

In addition, NSF programs such as Integrative Approaches to Neural and Cognitive 

Systems and Next Generation Networks for Neuroscience bring together mathematicians, 

physicists, computer scientists and engineers with strong backgrounds in biological 

research with psychologists and neuroscientists -- groups of scientists whose research 

fields do not traditionally intersect. The goal of these programs is to catalyze 

understanding of the brain at the convergence of quantitative, biological and behavioral 

research. 

These types of activities are also strengthened by interagency partnerships. For example, 

in partnership with the National Institutes of Health and several international funding 

agencies, multiple NSF directorates support collaborative research. NSF's longstanding 

support of chemistry, bioengineering, nanotechnology, microfabrieation and materials 

research pave the way for the development of designer drugs that can target pain 

receptors without engaging the signaling pathways that result in the development of 

addiction. 

Page 10 of14 
80 

These existing NSF activities serve well to help combat the opioid crisis through: (I) 

catalyzing new scientific breakthroughs, (2) unleashing the power of data, and (3) 

accelerating the delivery of new therapeutics to patients. 

Regarding violence in schools, NSF has been quite active in supporting basic research 

that illuminates the developmental, neurological, cognitive, social, familial, economic 

and demographic factors that can contribute to- or diminish- the likelihood of violent 

anti-social behavior. NSF does not have prevention of violence as part of its fundamental 

mission. Rather, the basic science NSF supports lays the theoretical and empirical 

groundwork for downstream translation into applications that can be brought to bear on 

this goal. 

A review of the NSF award abstracts database reveals many awards that have 

implications for understanding the causes of youth violence. Undoubtedly many more 

awarded prc:jects than those captured using specific keywords, contribute to the 

knowledge base in ways that are informative. Basic research on ostracism or peerrejection, intergroup dynamics, and self-regulation of impulsive action arc just a few of 

the areas supported by a number ofNSF's programs that have indirect implications for 

understanding and preventing youth violence. 

In 2013, NSF convened a Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Advisory Committee 

to the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate. The Subcommittee drafted 

a report titled, Youth Violence: What We Need To Know. A copy of the report is 

attached for your review. 3 The report emphasized violence by youths has numerous 

predisposing risk factors- as well as protective factors. Additionally, 'youth violence' is 

not a monolithic problem but an anti-social action that stems from many causes. For 

example, 'rampage shootings' differ from 'street violence' and the seeds that lead to 

these horrific outcomes can be quite varied. 

Following the release of the report, NSF also released a Dear Colleague Letter on Youth 

Violence, highlighting NSF's interest in receipt of basic research projects which address 

topics relevant to youth violence. As noted, NSF's Social, Behavioral, and Economic 

Sciences directorate, as well as the Computer and Information Science and Engineering 

directorate, has long supported pertinent research. 

Page 11 of 14 
81 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 20 19" 

Dr. France Cordova, Director, National Science Foundation 

Questions submitted by Representative Bill Foster, House Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

I. Has the National Science Foundation funded research to understand handgun violence or 

gun violence more generally? 

2. Have there been particular efforts in NSF to fund research on gun violence? 

3. Are there any impediments or prohibitions to the NSF funding gun violence research? 

Answer: NSF does not have a proposal or award policy related to scientific research into the 

causes and prevention of gun violence. Solicitations are typically general, disciplinary-based 

announcements intended to permit NSF to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of 

scientific research projects. NSF cannot predict the types of proposals the research 

community will submit to the agency when a general solicitation is released; for example, 

NSF's Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Directorate supports research that builds 

fundamental knowledge of human behavior, interaction, and social and economic systems, 

organizations and institutions. NSF is focused on funding national needs at the frontiers of 

science and engineering, as considered through the agency's merit review process. 

Examples of research funded by the National Science Foundation related to gun violence, 1996-

present. 

~w«rH ' . . . . 

;tl!*l!1~10 '1\itll! .. ' 9515327 Situational Contexts of Gun Use By Young Males 

Violent Incidents Among African-American Public School Students: A 

9727882 Proposal for Research 

Why Northern New Englanders Seldom Commit Murder: Violent Crime and 

9808050 Violent Death in New Hampshire and Vermont 

SGER: Coping with Community-based Traumatic Events: The Columbine High 

9910223 School Shootings and the 9111 Terrorist Attacks 

0242106 Gun Control and the Cultural Theory of Risk 

0215551 National Consortium on Violence Research 

0750762 Social and Behavioral Dimensions of Violent Crime 

0735471 SGER: Campus Violence: Exploring a Community's Resoonse to Tragedy 

Page 12 of14 
82 

SGER: Coping, Adjustment, and Resilience Among College Women Following 

0737940 the Mass Shooting at Virginia Tech 

Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: The Logic of Armed 

0921619 Violence in Drug Wars 

1060949 Testing Competing Theories of Violence 

1151449 CAREER: "Crime Victim inti on Patterns in American Cities" 

1422327 Collaborative Research: Threat Perception Followin.g Mass Violence Events 

RAPID: Risk Perception, Threat, and Anxiety Decay in Lonc-WolfTcrrorist 

1624296 Events in the US 

Doctoral Dissertation Research: Mass Shootings and the Gun Control and Gun 

1602672 Rights Movements 

1613947 EAPSI: A Psychology of Gun Ownership 

More detailed information, including the award abstract. researcher names, institutions, 

programs and other data associated with the awards listed above can be found at 

http://nsf.gov/awardscarch/. 

Page 13 ofl4 
83 

APPENDIX 

I "National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy," Interagency Working Group for 

Detecting and Mitigating the Impact of Earth-Bound Near-Earth Objects (DAMIEN) of the 

National Science and Technology Council, 2016 

2 "Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies," 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2010 

3 "Youth Violence: What We Need to Know," Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Advisory 

Committee to the Social, Behavioral. and Economic Sciences Directorate of the National Science 

Foundation, 2013 

Page 14 of 14 
84 

NATIONAL NEAR-EARTH OBJECT PREPAREDNESS 

STRATEGY 

PRODUCT OF THE 

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP FOR DETECTING AND 

MITIGATING THE IMPACT OF EARTH-BOUND NEAREARTH OBJECTS (NEOS) (DAMIEN) 

OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

DECEMBER 2016 
85 

About the National Science and Technology Council 

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the principal means by which the Executive Branch 

coordinates science and technology policy across the diverse entities that make up the Federal research 

and development (R&D) enterprise. One of the NSTC's primary objectives is establishing clear national 

goals for Federal science and technology investments. The NSTC prepares R&D packages aimed at 

accomplishing multiple national goals. The NSTC's work is organized underfive committees: Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability; Homeland and National Security; Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Science; and Technology. Each of these committees oversees 

subcommittees and working groups that are focused on different aspects of science and technology. More 

information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc. 

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and Technology 

Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976. OSTP's responsibilities include advising the President in 

policy formulation and budget development on questions in which science and technology are important 

elements; articulating the President's science and technology policy and programs; and fostering strong 

partnerships among Federal, state, and local governments, and the scientific communities in industry and 

academia. The Director of OSTP also serves as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and 

manages the NSTC. More information is available at www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. 

About the DAMIEN IWG 

The DAMIEN IWG was convened in January 2016 to consider options to mitigate impacts from NEOs, 

including detection, characterization, trajectory determination, impact analysis; senior U.S. decision 

making, international cooperation and communications; long-term and short-term mitigation options, as 

well as quantification of success and risks from different mitigation options; public outreach, and disaster 

planning, operations, and recovery. The IWG's primary goal was to provide focused input, via this National 

Strategy, into the National Planning Framework called for by the Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8): 

National Preparedness (2011). 

About this Document 

This document was developed by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) for Detecting and Mitigating the 

Impact of Earth-bound Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) (DAMIEN). The Strategy seeks to improve our Nation's 

preparedness to address the hazard of near-Earth object (NEO) impacts by enhancing the integration of 

existing national and international assets and adding important capabilities that are currently lacking. The 

Strategy builds on efforts at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to better detect 

and characterize the NEO population as well as recent efforts at the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to prepare for and respond to a NEO impact. The document was published by OSTP. 

Aclmowledgements 

The DAMIEN IWG would like to acknowledge the staff of the Science and Technology Policy Institute, 

particularly the efforts of Drs. Bhavya La I and Benjamin Corbin, and Alyssa Picard. 
86 

Copyright Information 

This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. §lOS}. 

Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgement to OSTP. 

Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by the original copyright holders or their 

assignees and are used here under the government's license and by permission. Requests to use any 

images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to OSTP if no provider is identified. 

Printed in the United States of America, December 2016. 

iv 
87 

Report prepared by 

NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

COMMITTEE ON HOM HAND AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP FOR THE DETECTING AND MITIGATING THE 

IMPACTS OF EARTH-BOUND NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS (DAMIEN) NATIONAL SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 

Chair 

John P. Holdren 

Assistant to the President for Science 

and Technology and Director, 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Staff 

Afua Bruce 

Executive Director 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

Chairs 

Steve Fetter 

Associate Director for National Security and 

International Affairs 

Office of Science and Technology Policy 

Reggie Brothers 

Under Secretary for Science and Technology 

Department of Homeland Security 

Stephen Welby 

Principal Deputy, Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Research Engineering 

Department of Defense 

Staff 

Tod Campanian 

Department of Homeland Security 

v 
88 

Chairs 

Fred l. Kennedy 

Title 

DAMIEN Membership 

Staff 

Victoria Pidgeon Friedensen 

Office of Science and Technology Policy Program Executive, Planetary Defense 

Lindley N. Johnson National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Planetary Defense Officer 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

James D. Applegate 

Thomas Breslin 

Yousaf Butt 

Amber Charlesworth 

Tod Companion 

Kenneth Davidian 

Alvin Drew 

Meredith Drosback 

Jay Falker 

Steven Fetter 

Gerald Fraser 

Alistair D. Funge 

Kevin Greenhaugh 

Ralph Guame 

Robert Hanrahan 

Kenneth D. Hodgkins 

David Hoppler 

Dana Johnson 

Leviticus A. Lewis 

Celinda Marsh 

Lindsay Millard 

Paul Miller 

Mark Mullholland 

Timothy Newman 

Damon Penn 

Audrey Schaffer 

Donley Silbaugh 

Michael Simpson 

James Ulvestad 

Steve Welby 

Damon Wells 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Department of State 

Department of State 

Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

U.S. Air Force Strategic Command 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Department of Security, National Nuclear Security Administration 

Department of State 

Department of State 

Department of State 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget 

Department of Defense, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National labs 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency 

Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey 

Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense 

ODNI Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Science Foundation 

Department of Defense 

Department of Defense, Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

vi 
89 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

Table of Contents 

Introduction .... .. ... . . ......................................................................................... 3 

Authority for Creation of the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy ............................. 5 

Implementation ofthe National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy.. . .... 6 

Strategic Goals .................................. . . ................. ·················· ..... 7 

Enhance NEO Detection, Tracking, and Characterization Capabilities... . .................................. 7 

Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption ........................................................................ 8 

Improve Modeling, Predictions, and Information Integration ........................................................... 9 

Develop Emergency Procedures for NEO Impact Scenarios ............................................................... 10 

Establish NEO Impact Response and Recovery Procedures ............................................................... 11 

Leverage and Support International Cooperation .............................................................................. 12 

Establish Coordination and Communications Protocols and Thresholds for Taking Action ............... l3 

Conclusion....................... ....................... .. ................................ . .................... 15 

Glossary........... ....................... . ............................................. 16 

References ............................................................................................................................................. 18 

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ 19 

vii 
90 

National Near·Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

Executive Summary 

The National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy (Strategy} and the forthcoming National NearEarth Object Preparedness Action Plan (Action Plan} together seek to improve our Nation's preparedness 

to address the hazard of near·Earth object (NEO} impacts by enhancing the integration of existing national 

and international assets and adding important capabilities that are currently lacking. The Strategy and 

Action Plan build on efforts at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA} to better detect 

and characterize the NEO population as well as recent efforts at the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS} to prepare for and respond to a NEO impact. Together, they aim to foster a collaborative effort in 

which the Nation can better understand, prevent, and prepare forthe effects of a NEO impact. The Nation 

must continue to leverage existing networks of expertise and capabilities, both public and private, and 

pursue targeted enhancements to improve the ability to manage the risks associated with NEOs. 

Seven strategic goals underpin the effort to enhance the Nation's preparedness to NEO impacts: 

1. Enhance NEO Detection, Tracking, and Characterization Capabilities. Objectives include: 

developing a capability road map to inform a strategy for investing in both U.S. and foreign 

abilities for detection, tracking, and characterization; improving observation capabilities for 

more complete and rapid observation of the entire population of NEOs; and updating 

existing observatories with capabilities to improve characterization assessments. 

2. Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption. Objectives include: developing 

capabilities for fasHesponse focused reconnaissance and characterization; researching 

deflection and disruption capabilities for NEOs of varying size, mass, composition, and 

impact warning times; and researching technologies required for deflection and disruption 

concepts. 

3. Improve Modeling, Predictions, and Information Integration. Objectives include: ensuring 

that adequate modeling capabilities are developed for each topical need, especially for 

modeling NEO trajectories to reduce orbit uncertainties and predicted impact effects; 

determining what outputs are required by whom; and establishing an organizational 

construct to coordinate the development and dissemination of modeling results. 

4. Develop Emergency Procedures for NEO Impact Scenarios. Objectives include: promoting 

a collaborative national approach to defend against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from 

a NEO impact event; and developing coherent national and international communication 

strategies to facilitate NEO impact preparations. 

5. Establish NEO Impact Response and Recovery Procedures. Objectives include: establishing 

national and international protocols to efficiently respond to a NEO impact, whether in 

deep ocean, coastal regions, or on land; and facilitating international cooperation and 

planning to recover from a NEO impact in a timely manner with minimal disruption. 

6. Leverage and Support International Cooperation. Objectives include: building 

international support and policies for acknowledging and addressing the potential Earth 

impact of a NEO as a global challenge; fostering consultation, coordination, and 

cooperation channels and efforts for the planning for, impact emergency preparedness 

before, and response to a NEO impact; increasing engagement with the international 

community on observation infrastructure, data sharing, numerical modeling, and scientific 

research; strengthening international coordination and cooperation on NEO data and 
91 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

analyses; and promoting a collaborative international approach to preparedness for NEO 

events. 

7. Establish Coordination and Communications Protocols and Thresholds for Taking Action. 

Objectives include: coordinating the communication of detected impact threats within the 

U.S. Government, as well as with other governments, media, and the public; developing a 

set of thresholds to aid U.S. decisions in whether to implement deflection or disruption 

missions; developing decision flowcharts for NEO hazard scenarios incorporating benchmarks and decision thresholds; and developing protocols for international interactions 

regarding NEO impacts outside of U.S. territory. 

2 
92 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

Introduction 

Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are asteroids or comets with heliocentric orbits that come near or intersect 

Earth's orbit1 They range in size from small "meteoroids" of only a few meters in size, to much larger 

bodies several kilometers wide. Figure 1 shows the current known near-Earth asteroid (NEA) 2 population 

(green bars), the current estimate of total NEA population (red line), the completeness percentage of 

survey efforts (blue line), and the estimated damage from a NEA impact (background), all as a function of 

the estimated size of the NEA. 3 

Smaller asteroids fly by or enter Earth's atmosphere frequently. The greatest number are small enough to 

burn up in the atmosphere, and most go completely undetected. Recently released U.S. Department of 

Defense data show that between 1994 and 2013, 556 bolide (see Glossary) events were observed in the 

atmosphere; these correspond to asteroids ranging from 1 meter to 20 meters in size entering Earth's 

1 See the Glossary for definitions of key terms used in this document. 

This survey status does not include comets, hence the distinction between NEOs and NEAs in Figure L However, Earth 

approaching comets represent less than 1% of the NEO population, and their enhanced signature from expelled dust make 

them much easier to detect once they cross inside the orbit of Mars. 

Harris, Alan, and Asteroid Grand Challenge. "NEA Populations and Impact Frequency." Population, 10 (2014): 6. 

3 
93 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

atmosphere. 

Even small NEOs can have significant destructive effects (see the background shading in Figure 1). For 

example, the airburst near Chelyabinsk, Russia on February 15, 2013 was caused by a small asteroid 

approximately 20 meters wide that had an energy equivalent of almost 500 kilotons of trinitrotoluene 

(TNT), or roughly 20-30 times greater than the energy released from the first atomic bombs. Current 

estimates of the NEO population predict that almost 10 million objects with a diameter greater than 20 

meters exist but have not yet been detected. 

Similarly, an object estimated to be approximately 40 meters wide exploded over Tunguska, Russia in 

1908 with the equivalent of 5-10 megatons of TNT and leveled over 2,000 square kilometers of trees. If a 

similar airburst event were to occur over a major metropolitan area, millions of injuries and casualties 

could result. Current estimates of the NEO population predict that over 300,000 objects greater than 40 

meters in size could be an impact hazard to the Earth and have not yet been detected. 

The most recent Congressionally-directed asteroid survey requires that NASA find 90% of objects that are 

140 meters in size or greater (see References). Such objects would strike Earth with a minimum energy 

equivalent of over 60 megatons of TNT, which is more energy than yielded by the most powerful nuclear 

weapon ever tested. After almost two decades of search, about 28% of the estimated population of 

asteroids 140 meters in size or larger have been discovered. The highlighted triangle in Figure 1, "Required 

to meet current objectives", illustrates estimates of the predicted population of objects >140m that are 

yet to be discovered. 

Larger NEOs {>140m), representing the potential to inflict serious damage to entire cities or regions, are 

also easier to detect and track, therefore more is known about this population than what is known about 

smaller objects. As Figure 1 shows, there are far fewer larger objects than smaller objects, so the 

probability of impact of a larger object is much lower compared to the probability of impact of a smaller 

object. 

The exact effects from a NEO impact depend on, among other things, its composition, size, shape, 

porosity, and impact velocity. Small, rocky NEOs are likely to explode before hitting the ground, resulting 

in an airburst that could cause a wider radius of moderate damage compared to a similarly sized NEO 

composed of mostly metal that would strike the ground and cause localized devastation. However, larger, 

denser NEOs would require more energy to deflect, and have more kinetic energy overall upon impact. 

As more NEOs are detected, and the total population of NEOs is better characterized, assessing the overall 

hazard of a NEO impact will become more achievable. 

Unlike other natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes) and space weather events (e.g., solar flares), NEO impacts 

are predictable many years in advance and, most importantly, potentially preventable when a survey of 

the population is complete. NEO impacts are a global hazard and could have major environmental, 

economic, and geopolitical consequences detrimental to the United States, even if the impact is beyond 

U.S. territory. Although currently a global leader in detecting and tracking NEOs, the United States will 

depend (in part) on international cooperation and coordination to help develop capabilities for 

characterization and future capabilities related to the development and implementation of deflection and 

disruption capabilities for NEOs. 

When a NEO that is on course to impact Earth is identified, it is a global threat that requires the leadership 

of the United States to establish a coordinated global approach for detection, tracking, and 

characterization as well as for deflection and disruption operations, if necessary, and preparedness in the 

event of an impact. If prevention proves technically infeasible or is attempted and fails, the United States 

may also need to take a leadership role in helping the international community reduce the negative 

consequences of a NEO impact. 

4 
94 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

While it is highly unlikely that there will be a civilization-ending NEO impact over the next two centuries, 

the risk of smaller but still catastrophic NEO impacts is real, and there is currently no whole-of-government 

or international strategy to respond to such an event throughout all phases of a NEO impact scenario 

timeline (Figure 2). The National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy (Strategy) and the forthcoming 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Action Plan (Action Plan) identify goals and activities to enhance 

the understanding of risk from, and national preparedness for, NEO impacts. 

This Strategy outlines objectives for enhancing the Nation's NEO preparedness in three key areas: hazard 

and threat assessment, decision-making, and response. Some Federal departments and agencies have 

already taken significant steps in these key areas. The goals outlined in this Strategy will leverage these 

efforts and existing policies, while promoting enhanced coordination and cooperation across the public 

and private sectors in the United States and abroad. 

Authority for Cr·eation of the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

To address the mandates and challenges above, an Interagency Working Group (IWG) for Detecting and 

Mitigating the Impact of Earth-bound Near-Earth Objects (DAMIEN) was established in 2016 by action of 

the Committee on Homeland and National Security within the National Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC). The DAMIEN-IWG developed this Strategy and will develop the forthcoming Action Plan to 

enhance preparedness for the hazard of NEO impacts. 

This Strategy will work to ensure that NEO impact preparedness is fully integrated with and builds upon 

several governmental frameworks already in place. These include: Presidential Policy Directive (PPD)-4, 

"National Space Policy" (June 28, 2010); PPD-8, "National Preparedness" (March 30, 2011); and PPD-21, 

"Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience" (February 12, 2013); Section 321 of the NASA 

Authorization Act of200S and Section 804 of the NASA Authorization Act of2008; and the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy's (OSTP) 2010 response to Congress (See References for the complete citations). 

PPD-4 instructs NASA to "pursue capabilities, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, and 

commercial partners, to detect, track, catalog, and characterize NEOs to reduce the risk of harm to 

5 
95 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

humans from an unexpected NEO impact on our planet and to identify potentially resource-rich planetary 

objects." 

PPD-8 calls for an integrated, all-of-Nation, capabilities-based approach to preparedness for all hazards. 

It also calls for the creation of a series of National Planning Frameworks. Accordingly, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) coordinated the development of the Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA). 

As of now, the SNRA does not include preparedness for the hazard of NEO impacts. 

PPD-21 identifies three strategic imperatives to drive the Federal approach to strengthening critical 

infrastructure security and resilience at the core of this Strategy. The Directive identifies energy and 

communications systems as vital due to the enabling functions they provide across all critical 

infrastructure sectors. The Directive also instructs the Federal Government to engage with industry and 

international partners to strengthen the security and resilience of domestic and international critical 

infrastructures on which the Nation depends. 

Section 321 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, labeled the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object 

Survey Act, directs NASA to detect, track, and characterize 90% of all NEOs with a size of 140 meters or 

greater, to be completed by 2020 (see Figure 1 (yellow triangle) for an estimation of how many such 

objects remain to be discovered). This survey will take much longer to complete without significant 

upgrades to capabilities that aid in detecting and tracking NEOs. 

Subsequently, Section 804 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008 requires that the Director of OSTP: (1) 

develop a policy for notifying Federal agencies and relevant emergency response institutions of an 

impending NEO threat if near-term public safety is at risk; and (2) recommend a Federal agency or 

agencies to be responsible for: (A) protecting the United States from a NEO that is expected to impact 

Earth; and (B) implementing a deflection campaign in consultation with international bodies, should one 

be necessary. In October 2010, OSTP responded to Congress and laid out Administration plans to meet 

the requirements in the NASA authorization. 

Implementation of the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

The Action Plan, to be released subsequent to this Strategy, details the Federal activities that will be 

undertaken to implement this Strategy and achieve the seven high-level goals, and includes deliverables, 

timelines, and metrics to measure progress and success. This Strategy acknowledges the challenges 

associated with planning and preparing for events with low probability of occurrence but potential for 

catastrophic consequences, as well as high uncertainty on the correct course of action when a threat 

materializes. As a result, the activities identified herein should be prioritized accordingly. The Executive 

Office of the President will coordinate the development and execution of the Action Plan and will 

reevaluate and update the Strategy and Action Plan within three years of the date of publication 

respectively, or as needed. 

Full implementation of this Strategy will require the action of a global network of governments, U.S. 

Government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental organizations including 

academia, the media, nonprofit organizations, and industry. Strong collaborations must be established 

among the Federal Government, other nations, industry, and academia to enhance NEO observing 

networks, conduct research, improve prediction models, plan and execute deflection and disruption 

missions, and supply the services necessary to protect life and property. These partnerships between the 

United States and the international community, industry, and academia will form the backbone of 

preparations for any threat of a NEO impact event. 

6 
96 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

Strategic Goals 

This Strategy defines seven strategic goals to prepare the Nation for a variety of NEO impact scenarios. 

These goals aim to improve the Nation's warning of, options for preventing, planning for, recovery from, 

and international collaboration responding to, NEO impacts. These strategic goals address the entire 

range of possible NEO impact scenarios, from decades of warning to no warning at all. Various possible 

phases, as well as capabilities that encompass the entire timeline of how to respond to potential NEO 

impacts, are shown in Figure 2. 

The seven high-level goals for Federal research, development, deployment, operations, coordination, and 

engagement are: 

1. Enhance NEO Detection, Tracking, and Characterization Capabilities 

2. Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption 

3. Improve Modeling, Predictions, and Information Integration 

4. Develop Emergency Procedures for NEO Impact Scenarios 

5. Establish NEO Impact Response and Recovery Procedures 

6. Leverage and Support International Cooperation 

7. Establish Coordination and Communications Protocols and Thresholds for Taking Action 

Enhance NEO Detection, Tracking, and Characterization Capabilities 

Finding NEOs as early as possible is the first priority for planetary defense, in order to give adequate time 

to make decisions and implement courses of action. This fact must be stressed: the earlier a NEO threat 

is detected, the better the emergency response to the threat will be. However, accurately predicting their 

orbits and understanding their structure and composition are equally critical to assessing the NEO impact 

hazard and how to best respond to a NEO impact threat. 

NASA is the global leader for ground- and space-based observations to detect, track, and characterize 

near-Earth asteroids and comets. Part of characterization is identifying and interpreting spectral 

signatures of near-earth objects, and the U.S. Geological Survey develops and maintains the spectral 

libraries necessary for this work. NASA and the Department of State collaborated with the United Nations 

to foster the International Asteroid Warning Network (lAWN), a voluntary organization of astronomers to 

encourage rapid reporting of asteroid observation data from observatories worldwide. NASA funds the 

Minor Planet Center (MPC), a clearinghouse for worldwide asteroid observations that identifies objects in 

potentially hazardous orbits, currently hosted by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. These, and 

other partnerships, have increased the global detection rate substantially over the last 10 years. 

Furthermore, attention to tracking smaller objects has increased with improved awareness of the negative 

consequences of impacts by smaller but far more populous NEOs. This has resulted in increased detection 

rates of these objects even though they are much harder to detect. Careful stewardship has enabled 

expansion of U.S. NEO observations through small investments in new technologies and analytic 

capabilities that have increased the fidelity and breadth of those observations. However, efforts to comply 

with congressional directives to complete the search for objects as small as 140 meters in size are several 

years behind schedule. 

The following objectives would improve detection, tracking, and characterization capabilities: 

Develop a capability roadmap to inform a strategy for both U.S. and foreign capabilities for 

detection, tracking, and characterization. Development of a capability road map to inform 

7 
97 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

investments by contributing nations will enable improvements to the overall global network. A 

roadmap will incorporate innovations in optical and infrared detection capabilities, 

improvements in ground-based radar capabilities, and improvements in automating and 

improving accuracy of analytical software. More costly, but just as important, is the 

development of improvements in on-board data processing and downlink for space-based 

observatories. 

Improve observation capabilities for more complete and rapid observation of the entire 

population of NEOs. To cite one example, several study reports have found that a space-based 

observatory, working in concert with observations from ground-based telescopes, may be the 

best approach to detecting, tracking, and characterizing the NEO population. This combination 

would more rapidly complete the survey of objects larger than 140 meters while greatly 

improving our understanding of the hazard from the 50-140 meter NEO population, and provide 

a voluminous dataset for both science and planetary defense. 

Update existing observatories with capabilities to improve characterization assessments. 

Efforts to deflect or disrupt a NEO could be made more effective if a basic understanding of the 

object's mass, composition, and structure is first obtained. For example, improvements in 

spectroscopy will enable faster estimates of gross composition. Ease of access to larger aperture 

telescopes when critical data are needed should be coordinated. Additionally, better planetary 

radar capabilities, such as increased power, radar frequency, or time available at major radio 

telescopes, are also critical to improving orbit determination, measuring size and understanding 

rotation states, and obtaining essential information about the object's surface structure. These 

data, when combined with advanced spectroscopic observations, can provide critical 

information to inform development of space-based technologies to prevent a NEO impact. 

Develop Methods for NEO Deflection and Disruption 

Several studies over the last two decades have pointed out that technologies exist that may be capable of 

preventing a NEO impact, and that true preparedness may need to include the ability to deflect (turn 

away} or disrupt (break into small pieces} a NEO headed towards Earth. The NEO population is quite 

diverse, a fact which presents significant unknowns when considering how to develop technologies 

capable of deflecting or disrupting the object. Observations, including optical and planetary radar (when 

objects are accessible for observation}, over many years may improve our understanding of the 

composition, mass, and behavior of any particular object (see Goall, above}, which in turn could improve 

design of deflection technologies. Disruption of the NEO may be required if there is little warning time or 

if the object is very large. Technologies to deflect the NEO away from Earth can be used, but to either 

disrupt or deflect a very large object, research and development of high-energy solutions is required 4 

The following objectives would improve deflection and disruption capabilities: 

• Develop capabilities for fast-response focused reconnaissance and characterization. The 

objective of Goall is to provide timely, high-certainty, actionable warning that a NEO threat 

exists, but because of the diversity of NEOs an effective deflection or disruption mission may 

need more detailed information on the specific threat One candidate concept for this objective 

would be a capability to rapidly launch, intercept, and conduct reconnaissance on a NEO, to 

4 Challenges associated with the transfer of space-related data, technologies, and equipment required for asteroid deflection 

and disruption, or other purposes discussed in this Strategy, would only be approved if consistent with U.S. export control 

!aws and regulations as well as international obligations and commitments. 

8 
98 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

provide up-close imagery, composition, and mass measurements (e.g., passive (visible, thermal, 

multi/hyperspectral) and active (radar, LIDAR, etc.) imaging techniques) in order to determine 

ways to enhance the effectiveness of any subsequent deflection or disruption missions. 

• Research deflection and disruption capabilities for NEOs of varying size, mass, composition, 

and impact warning times. With enough warning time, a NEO impact can be prevented. To 

address most impact scenarios, prevention capabilities should include the ability to achieve 

timely effects and feedback, for example: to launch a deflector or disrupter that can rapidly 

reach the object; conduct rendezvous and proximity operations when needed; and deploy 

kinetic impactors or other technologies. Additionally, deploying an instrumented means to 

measure the deflection over time can provide assurance of mission success. Where practical, 

real world demonstration of the deflection or disruption technique to test effectiveness and 

reduce uncertainties should be pursued, particularly when this can be done as a part of a 

mission to an asteroid or comet with broader science and exploration objectives. An assessment 

of the technical, policy, and legal issues with regard to delivering and triggering a high-energy 

device to deflect or disrupt NEO impact threat objects will be required. 

Research technologies required for deflection and disruption concepts. Given the potential 

short time between first detection and potential NEO impact, precursor reconnaissance of the 

object may not be possible. To improve mission success, some key technologies to be developed 

include: 

o Rapid assessment capabilities for ground-based, orbital, and deep-space systems. 

o Fast orbit transfers to maximize momentum transfer for kinetic impactors or maximize 

distance from Earth at point of intercept for deflection missions. High-acceleration 

maneuvering, near the point of intercept, is critical for optimized intercept locations and 

course corrections immediately before intercept. 

o Algorithms and on-board artificial intelligence for short-notice disruption missions to selfassess the optimal time and location for interception or disruption. 

Improve Modeling, Predictions, and Information Integration 

The NEO population is diverse, and the effects of impact with Earth are not well understood. Additionally, 

efforts to catalog and track NEOs, and to model NEO impact effects, are a very recent undertaking. A 

successful national strategy for NEO preparedness will depend, in part, upon quantitative modeling and 

analysis capabilities to more accurately predict a NEO's orbital trajectory, including non-gravitational 

perturbations, to determine what effects different deflection and disruption techniques may have on the 

orbital trajectory. Furthermore, it will be necessary to estimate the potential damage from a NEO impact, 

including secondary effects like local environmental and climate disturbances and economic 

consequences, and communicate how these models and analyses integrate across a range of activities. 

Given the relative immaturity of our understanding of these objects, it is understood that rapid advances 

could be made with modest investments that leverage existing analytical capabilities. 

Numerical modeling and leveraging state-of-the-art computational facilities and advanced simulation 

codes are of central importance in understanding prevention options and their consequences, predicting 

impact effects, and estimating uncertainties. Examples of modeling include the estimation of impact 

probabilities (or locations) of detected NEOs, evaluation of deflection and disruption technologies and 

techniques and how NEOs of varying sizes and compositions respond, and analysis of the risk to life and 

infrastructure by NEO impact effects in air, land, and water. The resultant information will be utilized 

throughout all phases of a response, including evaluation of the efficacy and risks of prevention, planning 

9 
99 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

for emergency preparation and response, and estimation of casualty and property losses-essential 

information for decision-makers. The quality and sufficiency of modeling and analysis capabilities 

underpin all other efforts, permitting decision-makers to understand what could happen and to plan and 

act accordingly. Modeling also can be used to study alternative courses of action, advise training and 

preparation exercises, and inform cost-benefit decisions, among other roles. 

The following objectives would enhance modeling and prediction capabilities and their integration across 

the Nation's effort: 

Ensure that adequate modeling capabilities are developed for each topical need, especially for 

modeling NEO trajectories to reduce orbit uncertainties and impact effects. In light of the core 

role of modeling and analysis, a comprehensive review should be conducted of modeling and 

analysis needs for planetary defense purposes to inform an assessment of current capabilities, 

including identifying strengths and gaps. A plan should be formed to establish capabilities where 

none exist or where the current capability is inadequate, as well as to maintain and improve 

existing capabilities, including identification of appropriate resources to support the activities. 

Determine what outputs are required by whom. When a potential NEO impact threat is 

detected, it will be important that all parties involved have, well in advance, a clear 

understanding of who requires what information, in order to reduce delays or confusion. 

Various agencies each have their own needs, while some information is required across the 

entire response effort. In addition to an a priori list of what each organization will need, training 

and preparation exercises provide an excellent means to uncover unexpected requests and 

interdependencies, and should be employed to search for omissions. 

Establish an organizational construct to coordinate the development and dissemination of 

modeling results. A national planetary defense response capability will need to rely on an asyet-to-be-developed organization spread across a range of governmental and non-governmental 

organizations. In the case of a real event, many independent sources of information and analysis 

are expected to emerge, both foreign and domestic. A capability or process will be needed to 

rapidly sort through the many sources of data and determine which are most valid and useful to 

decision-makers. It is important to ensure rapid assessment and timely delivery of valid 

information among U.S. Government agencies, as well as to international and 

intergovernmental organizations and foreign capitals through diplomatic, scientific, and 

emergency management channels, and provide verified information, notifications, and warnings 

in order to manage public awareness. 

Develop Eme1·gency Procedm·es for NEO Impact Scena1·ios 

In an ideal situation, an Earth-bound NEO can be deflected or disrupted well before it reaches Earth. 

Scenarios may occur in which a NEO impact cannot be prevented because there is not enough time 

between detection and impact to deflect or disrupt it. In the event that a NEO impact can be predicted, 

but cannot be prevented, a plan must be in place to prepare for the impact to avoid loss of life and mitigate 

damage to critical infrastructure as much as possible. The recently established NASA/FEMA-Ied Planetary 

Impact Emergency Response Working Group (PIERWG) has been coordinating efforts to integrate ways to 

address the risks and dangers of potential NEO impacts into national disaster response protocols to ensure 

the establishment of operational response capabilities unique to NEO impacts. 

Adding NEO impacts to the Strategic National Risk Assessment (SNRA) will have the additional benefit of 

including the problem of this scenario in the national lists of priorities. No study has been conducted to 

determine whether NEO emergencies meet the statistical criteria for inclusion in the SNRA; however, 

10 
100 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

while NEO events are rare, the consequences for failure to prepare or respond to a NEO event are 

extremely high. Inclusion in the SNRA will provide policy makers with the opportunity and motivation to 

include funding for future NEO emergency efforts. Under this structure, FEMA will have the requirement 

to at least consider preparing emergency response plans for these events. It is expected that existing plans 

for other hazards such as earthquakes or volcano eruptions, for which the U.S. Geological Survey has 

monitoring and warning responsibility, can be leveraged for a NEO-impact response plan. Coordination 

and training will be required to inform local, state, tribal, territorial, and regional emergency planners. 

The following objectives would benefit establishment of effective national preparedness procedures: 

Promote a collaborative national approach to defend against, mitigate, respond to, and 

recover from NEO impact events. Response to a predicted NEO-impact event would require an 

approach that would be facilitated by multiple agencies, with potential participation by other 

governments and industry. Such an approach should also include: 

o Facilitating the exchange of information and best practices with national and international 

emergency management stakeholders to strengthen global capacity to mitigate, respond to, 

and recover from NEO impacts. 

o Assessing the potential implications of a NEO impact event on critical infrastructure and 

supply chain dependencies, both foreign and domestic. 

o Coordinating international partnership activities to support the objectives of preparedness 

and response exercises. 

Develop coherent national and international communications strategies to facilitate NEO 

impact preparations. Such communications strategies should include: 

o Developing and disseminating training materials to assist Federal, state, and local 

governments as well as foreign governments in understanding the threat, and to assist in 

preparedness and recovery planning. 

o Using national emergency alert and warning protocols currently in place (i.e., orbital debris 

impact warnings) as much as possible while modifying existing protocols for other natural 

disasters where necessary. 

o Assisting in coordinating worldwide forecasts, alerts, and warnings using consistent 

nomenclature and non-technical terminology whenever possible. 

o Continuing to coordinate with the United Nations International Asteroid Warning Network 

to develop standard public awareness protocols and possible warning formats. 

Establish NEO Impact Response and Recovery Procedures 

The Department of Homeland Security, through its operational component FEMA, has coordinated the 

development of emergency response plans for all hazards via the Federal Interagency Operations Plans 

(FlOP) and Annexes. The FlOPs are the Federal Government's concept-of-operations documents that 

provide detailed explanations of how Federal agencies work together in crisis situations. The FlOPs are 

"all-hazards" documents and have separate annexes to cover specific hazards. This strategic goal seeks to 

identify all of the unique aspects of a NEO impact and ensure that our emergency responders and citizens 

are prepared to respond and provide the capability for national resilience in such an unusual scenario. 

While it is expected that a NEO impact emergency response could be similar to a hurricane response plan 

(including evacuations and other preparations in the event that there is warning before impact) or an 

earthquake response plan (in the event that there is no warning), NEO impact modeling and simulation 

11 
101 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

will inform specific details. Whether a NEO impact occurs with or without warning, a NEO impact Annex 

to the FlOP should be in place to inform decision-makers of possible first steps and to provide the basis of 

planning for local emergency responders. The remediation of damage to critical infrastructure should be 

prioritized to expedite recovery across all sectors. 

The following objectives would help to establish effective response and recovery procedures: 

Establish national and international protocols to efficiently respond to a NEO impact, whether 

in deep ocean, coastal regions, or on land. Different types of NEO impact scenarios have 

different national and international considerations, especially regarding the environmental 

consequences. Earthquakes and tsunamis could result from larger NEO impacts, creating 

consequences that spread far beyond the impact site, and the mechanisms for timely 

notifications and warnings should be developed and exercised as necessary to ensure proper 

public understanding and response to the emergency. 

Facilitate international cooperation and planning to promote recovery from a NEO impact in a 

timely manner with minimal disruption to the status quo. This includes assessments of critical 

infrastructure damage to effectively deliver foreign aid and recovery equipment to governments 

as needed. 

Leverage and Support International Cooperation 

The risk of a NEO impact is a global hazard best addressed well in advance of detecting the first potential 

impact through consultations, coordination, and cooperation with the international community directed 

towards improving detection, deflection, disruption, mitigation, and disaster relief. The United States' role 

would be to foster global collaboration and take advantage of mutual interests and international 

capabilities to improve preparedness for potential NEO impacts. If deflection or disruption proves 

technically infeasible, the United States may be best postured to take a leadership role in helping to 

reduce the severity of, and facilitate recovery from, the aftereffects of a NEO impact, even if the impact 

is outside U.S. territory. 

The United States and other nations are sharing observations and research, disseminating data products 

and services, and collaborating on real-time predictions which could be used to avoid or reduce potential 

damage to critical technology and infrastructure. For example, the NASA Planetary Defense Coordination 

Office works with the International Asteroid Warning Network (lAWN), sponsored by the U.N Committee 

on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS). The Network is a voluntary collaboration among 

governments, institutions, observatories, and individuals that enables coordination among astronomers 

and enables a free and open data exchange. lAWN members, and other observatories, voluntarily submit 

data to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory's Minor Planet Center, a NASA-funded clearinghouse 

for NEO detection data. It is expected that more nations will join the effort to work together to foster 

greater global collaboration, taking advantage of mutual interests and international capabilities to 

improve situational awareness, predictions, and preparedness for NEO events. However, addressing the 

challenges associated with asteroid deflection and disruption through the transfer of space-related data, 

technologies, and equipment, or other purposes discussed in this Strategy, would only be approved if 

consistent with U.S. export control laws and regulations as well as international obligations and 

commitments. 

The following objectives would enhance leveraging and support of international cooperation: 

Build international support for acknowledging and addressing the potential Earth impact of a 

large NEO as a global challenge. While detection rates are increasing, it is estimated that less 

than 30% of NEOs large enough to cause regional damage have been identified. A prerequisite 

12 
102 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

to enhanced international cooperation and high-level support for appropriate policies and 

coordination mechanisms among partner countries is increased awareness of the risks and 

dangers of NEOs to the entire planet. 

• Foster consultation, coordination, and cooperation channels and efforts for the planning for, 

mitigation of, and response to NEO impacts. The United States should take a leadership role in 

consulting, coordinating, and cooperating through multilateral channels including, but not 

limited to, the U.N. General Assembly, the U.N. Security Council, UNCOPUOS, and 

intergovernmental organizations, as well as in bilateral channels. In particular, the United States 

should continue its leadership in lAWN and the U.N.-mandated Space Mission Planning Advisory 

Group (SMPAG). The United States should also explore the necessity for additional consultative 

and coordination mechanisms at the bilateral government-to-government and 

intergovernmental level to discuss and share information related to detection, tracking, and 

characterization, prevention planning and options, as well as mitigation and recovery plans in 

order to supplement/complement existing mechanisms. 

Increase engagement and cooperation with the international community on observation 

infrastructure, data sharing, numerical modeling, and scientific research. The Federal 

Government should explore opportunities to work with the international community to enhance 

research, observations, models, and forecasting tools that will improve NEO detection, 

characterization, and trajectory forecasting. This will be done in compliance with U.S. export 

control laws and regulations as well as international obligations and commitments. 

Strengthen international coordination and cooperation on NEO data and analyses. Providing 

high-quality NEO data products and analyses worldwide requires international consensus and 

cooperation. Toward this end, the United States should: 

o Seek international agreement on common terminology, measurements, and scales of 

magnitude. 

o Continue to promote and coordinate sharing and dissemination of NEO observations, model 

outputs, and forecasts. 

o Establish coordination procedures across NEO research, forecasting, and detection centers 

(e.g., Minor Planet Center and the Jet Propulsion laboratory's Center for NEO Studies). 

Promote a collaborative international approach to preparedness for NEO events. A NEO 

impact can have global consequences regardless of impact location. Towards this end, the 

United States should: 

o Foster the development of international standards for NEO events requiring potential 

prevention, mitigation, emergency response, and recovery efforts to aid in decision-making. 

o Foster the development of international communication standards to ensure NEO events 

are effectively and responsibly communicated to the international community across 

diverse cultures via diplomatic, scientific, and media channels. 

o Conduct tabletop and physical exercises with global partners regarding preparedness for 

prevention, mitigation, response, and recovery efforts. 

Establish Coordination and Communications Protocols and Thresholds for Taking Actinn 

Developing the process and procedures, including protocols and thresholds, to be used in decision-making 

and communications-especially during a crisis with inherently high uncertainty-is necessary for timely 

13 
103 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

and effective implementation of prevention and mitigation measures. It is possible that there may be little 

to no warning of an impending NEO impact, therefore pre-planning and conducting simulations and 

exercises of emergency decision-making and communication across all- but especially time-critical and 

stressful-NEG impact scenarios are critical to prevention, mitigation, emergency response, and recovery. 

Coordination across all areas of government is necessary. 

The following objectives would assist creation of a comprehensive framework for determining the proper 

course of action across every phase of a NEO impact threat scenario: 

Coordinate communication within the U.S. Government, as well as with other governments, 

the media, and the public regarding NEO threats. Governments, scientists, observatories, and 

institutions will have the shared responsibility to make announcements using only verified and 

validated data if a potentially hazardous object is detected. The combination of public access to 

data, and its rigorous analysis by the worldwide network, will help to minimize the promulgation 

of false predictions. 

o NASA, per direction from the National Space Policy (PPD-4), has the responsibility to assess 

and report threats as they are detected. The NASA Planetary Defense Coordination Office 

(POCO) was specifically created to confirm data and analysis on potential impact threats are 

properly verified and validated and to ensure credible, rapid, and concise information 

transmission to the Executive Office of the President and other Federal agencies. PIERWG, 

co-chaired by NASA and FEMA, was created to ensure coordinated Federal response for 

terrestrial preparedness to the announcement. The PDCO also has the responsibility to draft 

announcements for providing information to the media and the public. FEMA will have a 

responsibility of communicating emergency response plans and notifications to the public. It 

is expected that a significant amount of basic education about this particular type of hazard 

will need to be provided, in addition to developing means of communicating uncertainties 

regarding the risks of a NEO impact and its aftereffects. 

o NASA should develop plans for notifying the U.S. Congress as appropriate for the magnitude 

of a projected NEO impact threat. Interagency teams should provide briefings to the 

appropriate Committees and Subcommittees prior to, or concurrent with, diplomatic 

notifications. 

o The Department of State, in coordination with other U.S. departments and agencies, should 

develop plans for notifying foreign governments and international and intergovernmental 

organizations as appropriate for the magnitude of the projected NEO Earth impact threat 

The Department of State, after receiving the information from NASA, and in coordination 

with other government agencies, will notify leadership of nations across the world of the 

impending risk and danger of an Earth-impacting NEO in an appropriate timeframe. As an 

example, the notification should include known characterization of the NEO, the date of its 

expected impact with Earth and projected impact location, plans (if any) for deflection or 

disruption, and preparedness plans including those for mitigation, emergency response, and 

recovery, including offers of U.S. assistance. 

• Develop a set of thresholds to aid U.S. decisions for whether to implement deflection or 

disruption missions for projected NEO Earth impacts on U.S. territory and outside of U.S. 

territory. UNCOPUOS has endorsed the establishment of SMPAG for space agencies to lay the 

groundwork for an international response to a predicted NEO impact. Once technologies are 

developed and the capability exists to deflect or disrupt an incoming NEO, thresholds will aid the 

United States, in consultation and coordination with its global partners, in determining whether 

14 
104 

National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy 

an impact can be, or should be, prevented. The United States must nevertheless retain the 

decision-making authority and ability to act by itselfto defend its national interests from NEO 

threats, especially when time is limited or the international consensus is Jacking or not 

attainable. 

Develop decision flowcharts for NEO threat scenarios incorporating benchmarks and decision 

thresholds. Prior to any NEO crisis, flowcharts should be created which integrate decisionmaking thresholds to help guide non-expert decision-makers to make the best decisions under 

uncertainty. These flowcharts should cover a wide range of variables to a NEO impact scenario 

such as size, composition, impact probability or location, and time before impact. These 

flowcharts will also help identify additional research and development gaps. 

Develop protocols for international interactions regarding NEO impacts outside of U.S. 

territory. Prior to any NEO crisis, decision-making and communications protocols should be 

created to guide the transmission of notifications and warnings through multilateral and 

bilateral diplomatic, scientific, and emergency management channels, as well as through the 

media. Through consultations, coordination, and cooperation the United States would work 

closely with the international community to address the risks and dangers of any potential NEO 

threats. 

Conclusion 

As with other low-probability, high-consequence hazards, potential NEO impacts pose a significant and 

complex challenge. This Strategy is a step in addressing the myriad challenges of managing and reducing 

the risks posed by both large and small NEOs. The seven high-level goals and associated objectives 

outlined in this Strategy support a collaborative and Federally-coordinated approach to developing 

effective policies, practices, and procedures for decreasing the Nation's vulnerabilities associated with the 

NEO impact hazard. 

15 
105 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

DEFENDING PLANET EARTH 

NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT SURVEYS AND HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

Space Studies Board 

Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board 

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences 

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEA1iLS 

THE NATIONAl ACADEMIES PRESS 

Washington, D.C. 

www.nap.edu 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
106 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 

NOTICE: The project that is the subjccl of this rcpot1 was by the Governing Board of the National 

Research CounciL whose members are drawn from the of the National Academy of Sciences. the 

National Academy of Engineering. and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible 

for the report were chosen for their special competences and \Vith regard for appropriate balance. 

This study is based on work supported by Contract NNH06CE 15B between the National Academy of Sciences 

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication arc those of the author(s) and dn not necessarily reflect the views of the 

agency that provided support for the project. 

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-14968-6 

International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-14968-1 

Crm?r: Cover design by Tim Warchocki. Images courtesy of NASA (Earth) and Tim Warchocki (asteroid 

and stars). 

Copies of this report are available free of charge from: 

Space Studies Board 

National Research Council 

500 Fifth Street. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

Additional copic<> of this report are availuble from the National Academics Press, 500 Fifth Street. N.W, 

Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 10055: (ROO) 624-6242 or (20:2) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan 

area): ImcrneL http://www.nap.cdu. 

Copyright 20!0 by the National Academy of Sciences. A!! right-; reserved. 

Printed in the United States of America 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
107 

Defending Planet Earth: Near -Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

Preface 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, 1 required NASA to ask the National Research Council (NRC) 

to conduct a study of near-Earth object (NEO) surveys and hazard mitigation strategies. Near-Earth objects orbit 

the Sun and approach or cross Earth\ orbit. In a June 2, 2008. letter, James L. Green. director, Planetary Science 

Division, NASA, and Craig Poltz. acting director, A:.tronomical Sciences Divi'>ion. National Science Foundation 

(NSF). wrote to Lennard Fisk. then chair of the Space Studies BQard, requesting that the Space Studies Board, 

in cooperation with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, conduct a t\vo-part study to address issues in 

the detection of potentially hazardous ~EOs and approaches to mitigating identified hazards (see Appendix B). 

The ad hoc Committee to Review Near-Emih Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies consisted of the 

Steering Committee, the Survey/Detection Panel, and the Mitigation Panel. 

The statement of task required the committee to include an a-;sessment of the costs of various alternatives, 

using independent cost estimating. Options that blend the use of different facllities (gmund- and space-based) or 

involve international cooperation were considered. Each study phase resulted in a report to be delivered on the 

schedule provided below. Key questions addressed during each phase of the study are the following: 

Task 1: NEO Surveys 

• Whut observational, data-reduction. 

Law 1!0- !(JJ ). Oi\·i~i!.l!l B--- Commcn:c. Ju~tic<:. Scienc<:, and Related Agencie:-. Appropri<l-

'The commlth:e note:-, !hilt the Matement of ta\k im;lude~ the term 

dtscm..:rcd. The committee therefore u~es th.c mon~ appropriate 

xi 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
108 

Defending Planet Earth: Near·Earth-Object SuNeys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

),:ii 

• What physical characteristics of individual beyond the detennination of accurate orbits should 

be obtained during the survey 

• What role could be played by 

objects? 

• What are possible roles of other ground~ and space-based facilities in addressing survey goals. e.g .. potential contributions of the Large Synoptic Survey Tele~cope (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Rcspon~c 

System {Pan STARRS)? 

Task 2: NEO Hazard Mitigation 

What mitigation strategy should be 

What are the relmive merits and costs 

hal<lrdous NEO is identified? 

scenarios that have been proposed? 

NASA and NSF requested an initial report for the first task no later than September 30. 2009. The committee 

delivered its interim report,5 containing only findings but no recommendations. in early August 2009. 

As indicated in Task l above. Congress charged the committee to recommend ways to discover and (partially) 

characterize 90 percent of NEOs exceeding 140 meters in diameter by the year 2020 (smaller objects are not discarded, once found). However. during its first meeting, the committee was explicitly asked by congressional staff 

to consider whether or not the congressionally established discovery goals should be modified. 

Press, Washington. D.C. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
109 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

Contents 

SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

References. l ! 

RISK ANALYSIS 

lnventory of Near-Earth Objects (NEO:..) and Potentially Hazardous ~EOs. 15 

Introduction, I 5 

The Distribution of NEO Orbits, 16 

The Size Distribution of NEOs and Potentially Hazardous NEOs, 17 

Produced by the Impact of NEOs, 19 

That Are Incapable of Producing Global EtTects, 20 

Tsunamis Produced by Ocean 21 

Impacts Capable of Producing Effects. 21 

Long-Period Comet Impacts, 22 

Ar..sessing the Hazard. 22 

Warning Time for Mitigation, :25 

Societal Elements of NEO Risks. 26 

References, 27 

SURVEY AND DETECTION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS 

The Spaceguard Effort, 30 

Minor Planet Center, 30 

Near Earth Object Program Office, 31 

Near-Earth-Objects Dynamic Site. 31 

Past Nem·-Earth-Object Discovery Effort<.;, 31 

Lowell Observatory Near-Earth-Object Search, 31 

Near-Em·th-Asteroid Tracking, 32 

X\' 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 

12 

29 
110 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

Present Near-Earth-Object Discovery Efforts, 32 

Catalina Sky Survey, 32 

Lincoln Near Earth Asteroid Research Program, 32 

Spacewatch, 33 

Current Space-Based Detection Efforts. 33 

Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer for Near-Earth Objects (:-IEOWISE), 33 

Canada's Near-Earth-Object Surveillance Satellite. 34 

Germany's AsteroidFinder, 34 

Addressing the 140-Meter Requirement Future Ground- and Space-Based Ncar-Earth-Object 

Discovery Efforts. 34 

Future Telescope Systems for Surveys of Near-Earth Objects, 35 

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. 35 

Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System 4, 37 

Catalina Sky Survey Binocular Telescopes, 37 

Discovery Channel Telescope, 40 

Space-Based Detection Techniques, 41 

0.5-Mcter-Diameter Infrared Space Telescope, 42 

NEO Survey Spacecraft, 42 

Survey and Detection Schedules, 42 

Low-Altitude Airburst NEOs: Advance Warning. 49 

Imminent Impactors,: NEOs on Final Approach to an Earth Impact, 49 

References. 50 

CHARACTERJZATION 

Ground~ Based Remote Characterization, 51 

The Role of Radar in the Characterization of Near-Earth Objects. 52 

Arecibo Radar Observatory. 53 

Goldstone Solar System Radar, 54 

Capabilities of Arecibo and Gold:.tone, 56 

Operational Reliability of Arecibo and Goldstone, 60 

Arecibo and Goldstone Radar Operating Costs. 60 

Recent Funding History of the Arecibo Radar, 61 

Characterization Issues for Airbursts, 62 

In Situ Characterization Relevant for Mitigation, 63 

Human Missions to Near-Earth Objects. 64 

References, 65 

MITIGATION 

Civil Defense: Disaster Preparation and Recovery, 69 

S!ow-Pu:.h-Pull Methods. 70 

Enhancement of Natural Effects, 71 

Enhanced Evaporation of Stuface ~1aterial, 71 

Application of Contact Force. 72 

Application of Gravitational Force. 72 

Applicability of Slow-Push-Pull Mitigation Techniques. 73 

Kinetic Impact Methods, 73 

Description of Kinetic Impart and Its Use. 73 

Summary, 74 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 

CONTENTS 

51 

66 
111 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

CONTENTS 

Nuclear Methods, 76 

Models and Uncertainties. 76 

Decades to Go-Standoff Burst, 77 

Decades to Go~Small Surface Burst, 78 

Conclusion~. 78 

Delivering to 'N"ear-Earth Objects, 80 

Disruption, 

Summary, 84 

Bibliography. 87 

xl'ii 

RESEARCH 89 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION AND COLI ,ABORATION 

Existing Organizations, 92 

National Cooperation. 93 

Intematlona! Cooperation, 94 

Education and Public Outreach, 96 

Reference, 96 

OPTI'v!AL APPROACHES 

APPENDIXES 

A Independent Cost Assessment 

B Letter of Request 

C Committee, Panel, and Staff Biographical Infonnatlon 

D Minority Opinion-Mark Boslough, Mitigation Panel Member 

E Glossary and Selected Acronyms 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences, All rights reserved, 

92 

97 

103 

113 

115 

126 

128 
112 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

Summary 

The United Stmes spends about $4 million annually searching for near-Earth objects (NEOs), according to 

NASA. 1 The goal is to detect those that may collide with Earth. The funding help~ to operate several observatories 

that scan the sky searching for NEOs. but, as explained below. it is insufficient to detect the majority of NEOs 

thnt may present a tangible threat to humanity. A smaller amount of funding (signiticantly less than $1 million per 

year) support~ the study of ways to protect Earth from such a potential collision (''mitigation"). 

Congress established two mandates for the search for NEOs by NASA. The first, in 1998 and now refeJTed to 

as the Spaceguard Survey. called for the agency to discover 90 percent of NEOs with a diameter of 1 kilometer or 

greater within 10 years. An object of this limiting size is con:-.idercd by many experts to be the minimum that could 

produce global devastation if it struck Earth. NASA is close to achieving this goal and should reach it within a tew 

years. However, as the recent (2009) discovery of an approximately 2- to 3-kilometer-diameter ?\lEO demonstrates, 

there are still large objects to be det<:cted. 

The second mandate, established in 2005, known as the George E, Brown. Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey 

Act.1 called for NASA to detect 90 percent of NEOs 140 meters in diameter or greater by 2020. As the National 

Research Council's {NRC's) Committee to Review Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategic~ 

noted in its August 2009 interim repo11 (NRC, 2009): 

Finding: Congress has mandated that NASA discover 90 f)t'rcent of all nearwEarth objects 140 meters in diam~ 

eter or greater by 2020. The administration has not requested and Congress ha., not apJ)ropriatcd new funds 

to meet this objective. Only limited facilities are turrently involved in this survey/discovery effort, funded by 

l\ASA's existing budget. 

a~tcroiU or l'omet who~.: 

are con~idered to be the 

imwr :.ol;tr ·'Y~tem frnm the 

iPublh: Law !09-1551. J:tnuar:r ·t 2005, Sn:tiou 321. Gemgc 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
113 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

DEFENDING PlANET EARTH" NEAR-EARTH-OBJFCT SURVEVS AND HAZARD M!11GATION STRATEGIES 

Finding: The current near-Earth object surveys cannot meet the goals of the 2005 George E. Brown~ ,Jr. 

Near-Earth Object Survey At·t directing NASA to discover 90 percent of all near-Earth objeets 140 meters in 

diameter or greater by 2020. 

THE SURVEY AND DETECTION OF NEAR-EARTH OBJECTS 

The charge from Congress to the NRC committee was stated as two tasks (sec the Preface for the full statement of task). The first asks for the "optimal approach'' the George E. Brown. Jr. Near-Earth Object 

Survey. The second asks for the same approach to developing a to ave11 an NEO-Earth collision and for 

options that include "a significant international component." 

The committee concluded that there is no way to dc!ine ''optimal" in this context in a universally acceptable 

manner: there are too many variables involved that can be both chosen and weighted in too many plausible ways. 

Recognizing this fact. the committee first took a broad look at all aspects of the hazards to Earth posed by NEOs 

and then decided on responses to the charge. The body ofthi'> report contains extensive discussions of these many 

issues. Thi~ summary concentrates on responses to the charge and at the end provides a few comments on some 

of the other main conclusions drawn from the report. 

Regarding the first task of it<> charge. the committee concluded that it is infeasible to complete the NEO cen.<.us 

mandated in 2005 on the required time scale (2020), in part because for the past 5 years the administration has 

requested no funds, and the Congress ha.<. appropriated none. for this purpose. The committee concludes that there 

are two primary options for completing the survey: 

Finding: The selected approach to completing the George E. Brown, Jr. Near~Earth Object Survey will 

depend on nonscientific factors: 

.. If the completion of the survey as close as possible to the original 2020 deadline is considered more 

important, a space mission conducted in concert with observations using a suitable ground-based telescope 

and selected by peer-reviewed competition is the better approach. This combination could complete the 

survey wen before 2030, perhaps as early as 2022 if funding ·were appropriated quickly. 

• If cost conservation is deemed more important, the use of a large ground-based telescope is the better 

upproach. Under this option, the survey could not be completed by the original 2020 deadline, but it could 

be completed before 2030. To achieve the intended cost-etl'ediveness. the funding to construct the telescope 

must come largely as funding from non~NEO programs. 

Multiple factors will drive the decbion on how to approach completion of this survey. These factors include, 

but are not limited to, the perceived for completing the survey as clos¢ as possible to the original 2020 

deadline, the availability of funds to the and the acceptability of the risk a:,sociated with the 

construction and operation of various 

Of the ground-based options, the (LSST) and the Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Respon~e Sy~tem. mentioned in and the additional options submitted to the 

tommittee in respon!:>c to it!:> publit request for suggestion~ during the beginning of this study. the most capable 

appears to be the LSST The LSST is to be constructed in Chile and has several science mis~ion~ as well a~ the 

capability NEOs. Although the mirror for the LSST has been cast and is 

telescope has not been funded and ~urvey 

of the NRC that is currently underway. 

Unless unexpected technical problems interfere. a space-based option should provide the fastest means to 

complete the survey, However. unlike ground-based telescopes, :.pncc options can·y a modest launch risk and a 

more limited lifetime: ground-based telescopes have far longer useful lifetime<> and could be employed for continued NEO .<,urveys and for new science (Ground-based telescope~ generally have an annual operating 

cost that is approximately lO percent and construction costs.) 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
114 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

SUMMARY 3 

The committee notes that objects smaller than 140 meters in diameter are also capable of causing significant 

damage to Earth. The best-known case from recent history is the 1908 impact of an object at Tunguska in the 

Siberian wilderness that devastated more than 2.000 square kilometers of forest. It has been estimated that the size 

of this ohject was on the order of approximately 70 meters in diameter, but recent research indicates that it could 

have been substantially smaller (30 to 50 meters in diameter), with much of the damage that it caused being due 

to shock waves from the explosion of the object in Earth's atmosphere. (See. e.g., Chyha et al., 1993; Boslough 

and Crawford, 1997, 2008.) 'Dle committee strongly stresses that this new conclusion is preliminary and must be 

independently vatidmcd. Since smaller objects are more numerous than larger ones. however, this new result, if 

CO!Tect. implies an increase in the frequency of such events to approximately once in three centmies. 

All told, the committee was struck by the many uncertainties that suffuse the subject of NEOs, including one 

other related example: Do airbursts from impactors in this size range over an ocean cause tsunamis that can severely 

damage a coastline? This uncertainty and others have led the committee to the following recommendation: 

Recommendation: Because recent studies of meteor airbursts have suggested that near-Earth objects as 

small as 30 to 50 meters in diameter could he highly destructive, surveys should attempt to detect as many 

30- to 50-meter-diameter objects as possible. This search for smaller-diameter objects should not be allowed 

to interfere with the survey for objects 140 meters in diameter or greater. 

[n all cases. the data-reduction and data-analysis resources necessary to achieve the congressional mandate 

would be covered by the survey projects themselves and by a continuation of the current funding of the Smithsonian 

Astrophysical Observatory's Minor Planet Center, as discussed in the report. 

CHARACTERIZATION AND THE ARECIBO AND GOLDSTONE OBSERVATORIES 

Obtaining the orbits and the properties of NEOs is known as characterization and is primarily 

needed to inform planning for defense of Earth. Such defense would be cmTied out through a suitable 

attack on any object predicted near certainty to othenvisc collide with Earth and cau<>e significant damage. 

The apparently huge variation in the physical properties of NEOs seems to render infeasible the development of 

a comprehensive inventory through in <>itu investigations by suitably instmmented spacecraft: the costs would be 

truly astronornical. A spacecraft reconnaissance mission might make good sense to conduct on an object that, 

without human intervention. would hit Earth with ncnr certainty. Such a mis,ion would be feasible provided there 

was sufficient w<.trning time for the results to suitably inform the development of an attack mission to cause the 

object to miss colliding with Earth. 

In addition to spacecraft reconnaissance missions as needed. the committee concluded that vigorous, groundbased characterization at modest cost is important for the NEO task. Modest funding could support optical obser~ 

vations of already~ known and newly discovered asteroids and comets to obtain some types of information on this 

broad range of objects. such a:-. their retlectivity as a function of color, to help infer tht•ir surface properties and 

mineralogy, and their rotation properties, In addition, the radar at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico and the Goldstone Solar System Radar in facilities for characterization 

within their reach in the solar system. a maximum of about one-tenth of the Earth-Sun distance. Areciho---which 

has a maximum sensitivity about 20-fold higher than Goldstone's but docs not have nearly as good sky 

as Goldstone---can, for example. model the three-dimensional shapes of (generally very odd-shaped) 

estimate their surface characteristics. a~ well as determine whether an asteroid has a (smaller) satellite or satellites 

around it, all important to know for planning active defense. Also, from a few relatively closely spaced (in time) 

observations, wdar can accurately determine the orbits of NEOs, which has the advantage of being able to calm 

public fears quickly (or possibly. in some cases. tt) shov-.r that they are \Varranted). 

Finding: The Aredbo and Goldstone radar systems play a unique role in the characterization of NEOs, 

providing unmatched accuracy in orbit detennination and offering insight into size, shape, surface structure, 

and other properties for objects within their latitude coverage and detection range. 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
115 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

4 DEFENDING PlANET EARTH: NEAR-I:ARTH-OBJECT SURFE:TS AN[) HAZARD MITIGATION STRt\TEG/l:.S 

Recommendation: Immediate action is required to ensure the continued operation of the Arecibo Obser~ 

vatory at a level sufficient to maintain and staff the radar facility. Additionally, NASA and the National 

Science Foundation should support a vigorous program of radar observations of NEOs at Arecibo, and 

NASA should support such a program at Goldstone for orbit determination and the characterization of 

physical properties. 

For both Arccibo and Goldstone, continued funding is far from assured, not only for the radar systems but for 

the entire facilities. The incremental annual funding required to maintain and operate the radar systems, even at their 

present relatively low levels of operation, is about $2 million at each facility (see Chapter 4). The annual funding 

for Arecibo is approximately $12 million. Goldstone is one of the three deep-space communications facilities of 

the Deep Space Network, and ib overall funding includes additional equipment for space communications. 

MITIGATION 

"Mitigation" refers to all means of defending Earth and its inhabitants from the effects of an impending impact 

by an NEO. Four main types of defense are discussed in this report. The choice of which one(s) 10 use depends 

primarily on the warning time available and on the mass and speed of the impactor. The types of mitigation are 

these: 

I. Civil defense. This option may be the only one feasible for warning times shorter than perhaps a year or 

two, and depending on the state of readiness for applying an active defense, civil defense may be the only choice 

for even longer times. 

2. "Slow-push,. or "slmr-pu/1" methods. For these options the orbit of the target object would be changed so 

that it avoided collision with Earth. The most effective way to change the orbit, given a constraint on the energy 

that would be available, is to change the velocity of the either in or opposite to the direction in which it 

is moving (direct deflection-that is, moving the object much less efficient). These options take 

considerable time. on the order of decades, to be effective, and even then they would be useful only for objects 

whose diameters are no larger than 100 meters or so. 

3. Ki11eric impactors. In these mitigation scenarios. the target\, orbit would be changed by the sending of one 

or more spacecraft with very ma~sive payload(s) to impact directly on the target at high speed in its direction, or 

opposite to its direction. of motion< The effectiveness of this option depends not only on the mas:-. of the target but 

also on any net enhancement resulting from material being thrown out of the target. in the direction opposite to 

that of the payload, upon Impact 

4. Nuclear rxplosions. For nontechnical reasons, this would be a !a<>t resort, but it is also the most 

powerful and could take several different forms, as in the report. The nuclear option would 

be usable up to a few kilometers in diameter. 

For larger NEOs (more than a few kilometers in diameter), which would be on the scale that would inflict serious 

global damage and, perhaps, ma~s extinctions, there is at present no feasible defense. Luckily such events are 

exceedingly rare, the last known about 65 million year<.; ago. 

Of the options, only impact has been demonstrated (by way of the very succes:<>ful Deep 

collided with comet Tempel~ I in July 2006). The other options have not advanced past the 

stage.. Even Deep Impact. a lO"kilometer-per~second impact on a 6-kilometer-diameter body, was on a 

scale would be required for Earth defense for an NEO on the order of 100 meters in diameter, and 

it impacted on a relatively large-and therefore easier to hit-object. 

Although the committee was charged in its statement of task with determining the "'optimal approach to developing a detlection capability," it concluded that work in this area is relatively new and immature. The C~)mmittec 

therefore concluded that the "optimal approach" starts with a research program. 

Copyriqht National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
116 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

SUMMARY 5 

FURTHER RESEARCH 

Struck by the ~igniticant unknowns in many aspects of ~EO hazards that could yield to Earth-based research. 

the committee recommends the following: 

Recommendation: The United States should initiate a peer-reviewed, targeted research program in the area 

of impact hazard and mitigation of NEOs. Because this is a policy-driven, applied program. it should not be 

in competition with basic scientific research programs or funded from them. This research program should 

encompass three principal task areas: surveys, characterization, and mitigation. The scope should include 

analysis, simulation, and laboratory experiments. This research program does not include mitigation space 

experiments or tests that are treated elsewhere in this report. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 

Responding effectively to hazards posed by NEOs requires the joint efforts of diverse institutions and individuals, with organization playing a key role. Because NEO~ are a global threat, efforts to deal with them could 

involve international cooperation from the outset. (However, this is one area in which one nation, acting alone, 

could address such a global threat.) The report discusses possible means to organize, both nationally and internationally. responses to the haLards posed by NEOs. Arrangements at pre~cnt are largely ad hoc and infom1al here 

and abroad, and they involve both government and ptivate entities. 

The committee discussed ways to organize the national community to deal with the hazards of NEOs and also 

recommends an approach to international cooperation: 

Recommendation: The United Stntes should tnke the Jead in organizing and empowering a suitable international entity to participate in developing a detailed plan for dealing with the NEO hazard. 

One major concern with such an organization, especially in the area of preparing for disasters, is the maintenance of attention and morale. given the expected exceptionally long intervals between harmful events. Countering 

the tendency to complacency would be a continuing challenge. This problem would be mitigated if. for example, the 

civil defense aspects were combined in the National Response Framework \-vith those for other natural hazards. 

RECENT NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT-RELATED EVENTS 

The U.S. Department of Defense. which operates sensors in Eanh orbit capable of detecting the high-altitude 

explo:-,ion of small NEOs. ha" in the past shared thi<; information with the 0JEO science community. The committee 

concluded that this data sharing is important for understanding issues such as the population size of small NEOs 

and the hazard that they pose. This sharing is also important for validating airburst simulations. characterizing the 

physical properties of small NEOs (such a~ their strength), and assisting in the recovery of meteorites. 

Recommendation: Data from NEO airburst t•vents observed by the U.S. Department of Defense satellites 

should be made available to the scientific community to allmv it to improye understanding of the NEO 

hazards to Earth. 

In 2008, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act·' calling for the Office of Science and Technology Policy to determine by October 20 I 0 which agency should he responsible for conducting the NEO survey 

and detection and mitigation program. Several agencies are possible candidates for such a role. 

During its deliberations the committee learned of several efforts outside the United States to develop spacecraft 

to search for categories of NEOs. In particular. Canada's NearHEarth-Object Surveillance Satellite, or NEOSSat, 

llO- !61 ). Divi~ion B-CI.l!lUJJCrl'>:. Ju.>tit::c, Science, und Rdat<:t.! Agc-ncie;:, Appropri<lCopyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
117 

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies 

6 DEFENDI.VG PLANET EARTH: NEAR-EARTH-OBJECT SUR\'ETS AND HAZARD MITIGATION S7Rl!'JEGIES 

and Germany'sAsteroidFinder are interesting and capable small-scale missions that will detect a small percentage 

of specific types of NEOs, those primarily inside Earth's orbit. Thc~e spacecraft will not accomplish the goals 

of the George E. Brown. Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act of 2005. However. they highlight the fact that other 

countries are beginning to consider the NEO issue seriously. Such efforts also represent an oppor!unity for future 

international cooperation and coordination in the search for potentially hazardous NEOs. In addition, the committee 

was impressed with the European Space Agency's early development oft he Don Quijote spacecraft mission. which 

would consist of an observing spacecraft and a kinetic impactor. This mission, though not funded. would have value 

for testing a mitigation technique and could still be an opportunity for international cooperation in this area. 

Finally. the committee points out a current estimate of the long-term average annual human fatality rate from 

impactors: slightly under 100 (Harris. 2009). At tirst blush. one is inclined to dismiss this rate as trivial in the 

general scheme of things. However, one must also consider the extreme damage that could be inflicted by a single 

impact: this presents the classic problem of the conflict between ·'extremely imponant" and "extremely rare." The 

committee considers work on this problem as insurance, with the premiums devoted wholly toward preventing 

the tragedy. The question then is: What is a reasonable expenditure on annual premiums? The committee offers a 

few possibilities for what could perhaps be accomplished at three different levels of funding (see Chapter 8): it is, 

however, the political leadership of the country that detennines the amount to be spent on scanning the skies for 

potential hazards and preparing our defenses. 

REFERENCES 

Low-altitude airbur!>h and \he impact threat. International Journal of Impact Enginecting 

the L1nited 

lJ-L. Remo. 

Chyha. C.F.. PJ. Thllma~. and KJ. Zahn!c 1993. The 1908 Tungu~b expkhi,m-Atmo-.pheric dil-ruption of a ~tony a~ternid. Na\ure 

361:40-4-t 

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 
118 
119 

YOUTH VIOLENCE' WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW 

Report of the Subcommittee on Youth Violence of the Advisory Committee to the Social, Behavioral and Economic 

Sciences Directorate, Notional Science Foundation1 

INTRODUCTION 

Rampage shootings in schools differ in dramatic ways from "street violence" commonly associated with urban 

areas. School rampages typically occur in stable, close knit, !ow crime and very small rural towns and less often in 

exurbs. The shooter generally is a white adolescent mole, with no recorded history of disciplinary problems, and no 

documented history of medical treatment for mental disorders. The shooter is often at the high end of the intelligence and academic achievement spectrum, but lacking in the badges of athletic ability and other social affributes 

that are highly valued by peers. 

Urban "street shooters," by contrast, are found in densely populated areas with high crime levels, low levels of 

social trust, and are rarely high academic performers. High poverty neighborhoods, often plagued by illicit drug and 

gun markets, ore particularly at risk for youth violence. Although rampage shootings ore rare, they ore devastating 

because of the randomness of the victims. Urban bloodshed, which often unfolds between known antagonists, is far 

more ubiquitous and hence exacts o terrible toll on families and communities destabilized by persistent violence. 

When gun violence of either kind occurs, it is only natural for citizens and policymokers to seek to identify "the 

cause." Although tragic events like the Newtown shooting ore caused by multiple risk factors, three main factors hove 

been discussed--access to guns, exposure to violent media, and mental health. We hove a body of reliable evidence 

and a stable of theories to explain youth violence that hove emerged from decades of research, including research sup~ 

ported by the National Science Foundation, the Notional Institutes of Health, the Notional Research Council, and other 

federal agencies. 

Particularly important within this corpus is research documenting risk factors for aggressive and violent behav~ 

ior, especially poor parenting practices, households under economic stress, rejection from adolescent peer groups, 

deteriorating mental health, and intensive exposure to the fantasy world of online games that glorify violence and 

desensitize the viewer to its consequences. Particularly damaging is the fusion of masculinity and violence in popuM 

!or culture that is consumed by adolescents in all corners of the country. The interplay, or additive nature, of these 

risk factors is important to consider because no single risk foetor provides us with a comprehensive understanding. 

Adolescents in low crime communities who believe themselves to be "soda! losers" see a solution in enacting 

dangerous, anti-social behavior because they will be able to replace a damaged identity with a new and more 

satisfying one: the notorious, dangerous, hyper-masculine anti-hero. Adolescents in high crime communities absorb 

the "code of the streets," which requires individuals and groups to project- ond sometimes to enact- a tough, 

violence-prone image in order to word off threats they encounter in ordinary interaction. 

Though we know o great deal about the etiology of youth violence, the changing online and gaming landscape, state level variation in access to weapons, and evolving nature of family structure, among other changes, 

require a forward research agenda to examine these changes and new challenges. Our understanding 

of the social relations schools that can help youth to avoid violence as they contend with peer conflict, to 

develop social trust that governs levels of Interpersonal conflict, and to come forward in the presence of threats, 

is underdeveloped. Advances in the study of large-scale datasets offer the possibility of learning about youth 

culture and "cyberbullying" from pub!icolly ovof!oble social media that have become important forms of youth-toyouth communication. Additionally, while civil liberties implications will require further study, the potential for online 

intervention exists, which may prevent both cyberbu!!ying and violent behavior. 

In the sections that follow, we focus on key areas for future research. These suggestions are supported by the 

research summarized in Appendix A, where the contributing members of this advisory panel hove described "what 

we know." 

' Co-Choir: Brad J. Bushman (The Ohio State University & 

Hopkins University); Portk:iponts: Sondro Colvert {Georgetown Unlvetslty), Geraldine Downey (Columbia 

Hopkins University), Michael Gotlfredson {University of Oregon), Nina G. Jablonski (Pennsylvania 

of Minnesota). Colvin Morrill {University of Ca!lfornio, Berkeley), Daniel B. Nell! {Carnegie Mclbn University), Daniel Romw (U'liversity of 

Pen11sy!vonlo), Daniel Webster (Johns Hopkins Un!versity) 
120 

YOUTH VIOLENCE AND EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE 

Public debate on the link between violent media and aggressive and violent behavior con be contentious, 

especially in the wake of a shooting rampage. Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 youth in Norway, claims he used 

the video game "Modern Warfare 2'' as a military simulator to help him practice shooting people. Similarly, Eric 

Harris and Dylan Klebold, who murdered 13 fellow students in Colorado, claimed they used the violent video game 

"Doom" to practice their shooting rampage. Violent video games have olso been implicated in other school shoot~ 

ings {e.g., Bethel, Alaska; Paducah, Ky.; Jonesboro, Ark.). 

It is not possible to know whether playing violent games caused Breivik, Harris and Klebold (or any other killer) 

to shoot their victims. However, a comprehensive review of more than 381 effects from studies involving more than 

1 30,000 participants around the world shows that violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal (e.g., heart rote, blood pressure), and aggressive behavior. Violent games also decrease 

helping behavior and feelings of empathy for others. A meto~ana!ysis of 26 studies involving 1 3,661 participants 

found that violent media exposure is also significantly linked to violent behavior {e.g. punching, beating, choking 

others), although the effects ore smaller than for aggressive behavior. Yet, additional research is still needed to 

address some important questions about media impacts, porticulorly given the rapid evolution of the technology 

that is flooding young consumers with ever more realistic depictions of violent behavior on screen. 

At-risk Individuals: Some individuals are more at risk for the effects of violent media than ore others. We know 

very little about the differential impact of violent media on certain subpopu!ations. 

Are youth with certain menta! illnesses more or less sensitive to violent media? 

Are males with extremely traditionally masculine gender roles particularly at risk for violent media effects? 

Very young children may be especially at risk for negative outcomes after violent media exposure. How 

much and what kinds of violent media do young children(< 8 years) consume and how does that exposure 

impact their development? 

How does playing newer kinds of aggressive games on opps influence children's aggressive thoughts and 

behaviors? 

The relationship between gaming end depression among adolescents is poorly understood. Are youth be~ 

coming depressed because their engagement in gaming is removing them from soda! interaction and inten~ 

sifying the feeling of isolation? Or are youth who ore already socially isolated more attracted to gaming 

to begin with? Do virtual relations "crowd out" actual soda! bonds? 

Fantasy-reality Distinctions and Transfer to Real~life SeHings: The distinction between fantasy and reality is 

blurry for very young children. Older youth could be susceptible to such problems m well. 

What kinds of relationships do youth form with onscreen characters? Do youth perceive these fantasy figures as friends, role models {heroes and anti-heroes), or as embodying themselves? Do these different kinds 

of relationships with media characters differentially affect the likelihood of aggressive outcomes after 

media exposure? 

The relationship between fantasy behavior (shooting on screen) and aggressive behavior is well under~ 

stood. In what circumstances, though, does this fantasy behavior transfer to violent, criminal behavior 

among youth? for example, what is the relationship between violent media consumption and access to or 

ownership of guns? Are the people who have lethal weapons also those who ore fantasizing about their 

use through online worlds? 

Violent media are becoming progressively more immersive as the technology advances (e.g., high definition, 3-D, surround sound, larger screens, virtual reality). Do more realistic media interfaces make it more 

difficult for youth to distinguish between fantasy and reality and make it more likely that they will oct on 

whot they do or see in media experiences? 

How does the consumption of violent media impact the formation and sustenance of trust? Do children and 

youth who ploy aggressive games come to see the world as "mean and scary?" Or ore those who ore 
121 

already distrustful disproportionately attracted to violent media? Or is this relationship bi~directional? 

Group Processes: Youth often ploy aggressive games in groups, sometimes in the same setting. Little is known 

about how intergroup processes in online and offline settings versus solitary ploy influence aggressive outcomes. 

How does the impact of violent media differ when online games are played in groups (where the players 

ore "working" side by side), as distributed allies (where players ore in teams but not co-located), or as 

dyads versus playing alone? 

How does competition and collaboration between game players influence aggressive outcomes? Do soli~ 

tory players team up with other online players, potentially creating allies and friends, or do they compete 

against them, making them more likely to be perceived os enemies? 

Does versus solitary interaction around violent media amplify the problems that may be experienced 

by who suffer from mental illnesses? 

Environmental Factors: The media environments of children and youth hove increasing amounts of aggressive con· 

tent delivered by numerous platforms. 

How much aggressive content is in current television programs, films, video games, opps, and musk? 

Do consumption patterns of violent media vary by geography {rural, suburban, urban), socioeconomic sto~ 

tus {SES), gender, ethnici1y, or household composition? 

Youth violence is decreasing while violent video consumption is increasing. Are youth who live in risky en· 

more protected from actual violence because they ore indoors consuming media and 

way? 

Rating systems hove not kept up with the increasingly violent content of popular media {e.g., PG·13 fHms 

contain as much violence today as R·rated films in the post). Ratings systems vary across media platforms 

and hove included age and/or content markers. Because there ore not standard ratings across platforms 

{e.g., R for movies; TV·MA for TV, T for Teen in video games), they are difficult for parents to understand. 

We need to evaluate the potential benefits of a universal rating system for aU media (TV, films, video 

games, musk, opps), with symbols that are more transparent. The PEG! {Pan European Game Information) 

system, for example, has five age~bosed ratings (3+, 7+, 12+, 16+, 18+) and six welkecognized sym~ 

bois for potentially objectionable material {violence, sex, drugs, discrimination, fear, gambling). 

Biological Factors: Researchers are beginning to explore the addictive nature of video games, but more research 

is needed, 

Do video games tap into biological reword systems {!ike other addicting substances such as drugs and ol~ 

coho!)? Does group·shored fun while playing video games enhance reword effects? Self~contro! is impor~ 

tant in other addictions. What role does self~contro! play in the use of video games? 

What is the difference between engagement, which con increase learning, and addiction? 

How do violent media impact brain development and function? 

SOCIAL REJECTION AND PEER HIERARCHIES 

Most youth who engage in lethal violence hove a history of soda! rejection but are highly concerned about acceptonce. However, rejection occurs in various forms and from various sources, and this may hove important impli~ 

cations for understanding whether and under what circumstances rejection triggers violence versus other responses. 

There is some suggestion that rampage shooters hove a history of rejection from relatively small and cohesive 

peer networks that they hove sought entry into often through behaviors thot peers perceive as sod ally inept. Urban 

youth violence often occurs in response to perceived disrespect among poor urban youth, whose efforts to assert 

status within schools ond on the street moy toke the form of highly aggressive behavior. These young men ore of 

particular risk for school failure and dropout as a consequence of exclusionary disciplinary practices enacted to in 

response to their transgressive behavior. Disengagement from school promotes entry to networks outside of school, 
122 

including gongs, that may encourage the use of violence to settle disputes. 

In schools, how youth define and respond to behavior with peers and adults they find troubflng needs to be 

studied holistically, incorporating violent behavior as a subset of potentia! responses and assessing how adults {in~ 

eluding security guards) help to promote, as well as impede, nonviolent resolution of conflicts. Particularly important 

in these dynamics are peer /reputational hierarchies, the quality of interpersonal and group relations (e.g. strong 

as compared with weak ties) in different face~to~face and online spaces, and sex differences in regard to peer 

conflict There needs to be more known about how these factors vary demographically across schools and broader 

contexts {e.g., urban compared with rural settings). 

There is significant literature on school climates and cultures of soda! trust as undergirding, protective factors 

against violence and conflict. Much of this literature is based on self·reported beliefs and behaviors, but we know 

less about how trust is actually established and sustained over time, contributing to constructive conflict management 

that con stem the tide of aggression or violence. 

Especially important in these processes may be the quality of adult· youth Interaction and the facilitative impact 

of effective leadership. We need to know more about how security and exclusionary disciplinary regimes relate 

to social trust and adult-youth interaction, particularly with respect to peer hierarchies and youth conflict practices. 

Also important is greater knowledge about how off~compus, third parties (e.g., alumni, community members) con 

facilitate or inhibit the production of soda! trust in schools. 

We know relatively little about how youth seek out help and support from oduhs when dealing wifh troubling 

situo1ions either foce~to·face or online. To study these dynamics, we need to expand our methodological toolkit to 

include comparative studies (across institutional types, from different countries, etc.), and multi-method studies that 

incorporate fieldwork, surveys, focus groups, and experimental designs. 

Across urban and rural contexts, it will be important to understand how heightened sensitivity to rejection 

develops and is sustained in youth. How do families, peers, schools, and societal stereotypes foster or 

moderate sensitivity to rejection? What goals do the use of violence, and especially lethal gun violence, 

serve among those who use it or plan to use it in response to rejection? Does violence provide o sense of 

escape from feelings of powerlessness? 

How do individual child characteristics, notably self~regulotory competency, moderate reactions to rejec~ 

tion and promote more adaptive responses to social threat2 

Adolescence is a time of rapid brain development. Understanding the neural basis of soda! threat 

and reactions to it is important and needs to be studied, potentially via functional and structural brain 

imaging. 

UnclecsloncJ;na rejection by peers and adults in important settings such as schools-the form it tokes in 

daily when and why and by whom-and how it interacts with the sensitivity to rejection of the 

target is important. 

Among marginalized youth, what kinds of relationships might reduce risk of extreme reactions to rejection, 

help seeking, and interrupt plans for revenge that might involve lethal violence? How do youth 

to seek help? 

Is evidence of sensitivity to rejection a useful Indicator of heightened risk for extreme behavior, given that 

it is implicated in many types of disorders and has !inks with suicidal risk as well as to violence? 

How do youth handle peer conflict across different contexts? What soda! and institutional conditions {strong 

and weak ties} facilitate nonviolent as compared to violent responses? 

How is social trust produced in schools and what effects do different security regimes have on it? 

A number of rampage shooters have been college students or dropouts. Understanding what contributes to 

risk of lethal violence among college age students is important because they hove aged out of adolescent 

peer groups and may be even more difficult to identify as a result. 
123 

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY 

More research is required to discover the similarities and differences between rampage shootings or moss 

killings and other, more common forms of violent crimes and delinquencies. How the characteristics of the incidents 

themselves and the backgrounds and characterlstks of the individuals involved differ from other types of oggres~ 

sive, violent and weoponMinvolved crimes would be useful (e.g., the extent of planning, the relationship between levels of self-control or se!fMregulotion and violence, the solitary or group nature of the offending, and the time, place, 

and method of occvrrence). 

The connection between self-destructive behavior and ideation and rampage shootings needs more study. 

Many rampage shootings seem characterized by both suicidal and homicidal ideation. What ore the precursors 

of such ideation and how do these forms of ideation translate into action? How does this form of both suicidal and 

homicidal ideation differ from either form alone? 

The news media cover rampage shootings heavily, but very little is known about the effects of such coverage on 

adolescents and young adults. Does such coverage increase thoughts of imitation, as it seems to in suicide? Is it more 

likely to influence thoughts of imitation among youth who already have thoughts of suicide and homicide? There is 

evidence that school shootings encourage (mainly false) reports of school bombings, but do some youth use such 

events as a way to achieve notoriety, as has been suggested in sensational coverage of suicides? 

Given the established relationship between age and violence (with the peak age falling at late adolescence or 

early adulthood), there is a need to know more about: 

the relationship between suicide and homicide, and the intersection between the two; 

whether there ore differentia! effects of se!f~contro! or self-regulation for the development of suicidal and 

homicidal ideation; and 

how school and other social institutions can create enhanced soda[ efficacy and bonding effects for students, and how differences in school dimote con reduce levels of crime and violence, particularly during 

adolescence. 

FAMILY INFLUENCES ON VIOLENT BEHAVIOR 

There is a large body of research suggesting that families ore involved in different ways in the development 

and prevention of antisocial and violent behavior. Evidence also indicates that numerous aspects of family inf1uence 

on children ore malleable through intervention. Yet there are mony gaps in knowledge about the roles of families in 

violent behavior that could inform policy end interventions to reduce risks for youth violence and promote resilience 

among high-risk children. 

Research is needed on the role of early environments, both prenatal and post~natol, for neurobehavioral development related to risk, vulnerability and the protective factors strongly associated with the later development of 

violence in children. These include the effects of physiological stress on the development of executive functions and 

stress-regulation systems, and the effects of parenting on brain development and socialization of behaviors that 

predict violence. Research is also needed on the best intervention strategies for reducing stress lrl pregnant mothers 

and helping families prepare their children for kindergarten and gain access to high-quality child care and early 

learning experiences for children. 

Monitoring by parents is implicated in violence development and prevention. Research is needed on the best 

strategies and developmental timing for parents to promote positive child uses of media, safe behavior around 

firearms, and healthy connections to pro-social peers, activities, and mentors. Because parents may not appreciate their influence on older youth, research is needed on educating parents about staying involved with their 

adolescent children. 

Lorge, new studies planned on child development, such as the National Children's Study, should be urged to indude survey items ond methods that will inform these questions. Important data on the following questions con also 
124 

be gleaned from existing longitudinal dotosets. 

How do prenatal or early post-natal exposures to stress or trauma and environmental toxins alter the risk 

for violence later in development? 

Do interventions that improve self-control skill> reduce youth violence? What are the most cost-effecfive 

strategies and timing for these interventions? 

What ore the most effective interventions for educating parents about effective and age-appropriate 

ways to monitor child behavior, including their media use, peer interactions, and school involvement? 

High~risk families (e.g., unstable, homeless, with incarcerated parents or violence in the home) contribute 

disproportionately to violence in inner-city neighborhoods. What interventions make o difference in inter· 

rupting this cyde? 

Is the foster core system o "violence feeder system" in that young people who age out ore particularly 

vulnerable to crime, domestic violence, and homelessness? What con be done to address the special needs 

of children in foster core? 

What kind of mental health and community resources ore needed for families concerned about a child who 

demonstrates signs of preoccupation with violence, violent media, or violent behavior? 

Do lorge~scole interventions that aim to increase academic achievement (e.g., Race to the Top} also mlti~ 

gate youth violence? 

DATA MINING FOR PREDICTION AND INTERDICTION OF SHOOTINGS 

Online data sources may hove multiple potential uses for understanding, predicting, and preventing violence. 

These include but are not limited to (a) tracking population~level demographic and geographic trends in risk 

behaviors, {b) geographic ''hot spot'. prediction for urban violence, {c) "risk stratifkation" to identify-with appro~ 

priote safeguards-those who ore signaling violent intentions and who would beneflt from early intervention, (d) 

facilitating the reporting of planned or potential attacks by others (e.g., friends and classmates) with knowledge of 

impending events, and (e) understanding bullying behavior and its role in influencing violence. Each of these pow 

tentia! applications should be explored further to analyze its potential impact (benefits and risks) and feosibil!ty of 

implementation. To be successful, research in any of these domains must address the potential biases and limitations 

of these online data sources. Clearly, it will also be necessary to address and mitigate serious risks to privacy. 

Many of the methodological tools needed for these analyses (such as anomalous pattern detection, predictive 

modeling, sentiment analysis, and social network analysis) hove already been developed in the fields of machine 

learning, doto mining, computational linguistics and statistics. These existing tools should be Integrated into systems 

which con address the challenges listed above. 

Additionally, on interdisciplinary is needed to understand and address the gaps between the curw 

rent methodological state of the art what methods are actually needed to fully address these problems. For 

example, we may need more work on "deeper" natural language to identify the intent of online text (e.g., 

distinguishing an actionable threat from other negative sentiments) to infer user characteristics (e.g., location, 

age group, gender, mental illness), may need to develop better algorithms for learning and inference 

using complex data {with many types of multiple network and relational structures, multilingual data, 

etc.) and for detecting relevant, anomalous patterns in such data. 

The focus should be on developing tools that can be broadly used, and framing methodological questions (e.g., 

early event detection and prediction) that generalize across multiple domains. The solutions to such problems would 

then advance the science, for example, of language understanding, massive data analysis, and pattern discovery, 

as well os potentially preventing or reducing youth violence. Open questions for further research include: 

Con Twitter and other online data sources (e.g., gaming forums) be used to track the demographic and 

trends in consumption of violent media and correlate these with other indicators {e.g., use of 

language), accounting for demographic and other biases in these data sources? 

Con new data sources (e.g., online data such as Twitter or specialized systems to monitor, identify, and 
125 

track graffiti) be integrated with currently used low enforcement and 911 call data to enhance the time!!* 

ness and accuracy of prediction ("where" and "when" street shootings ore likely to occur, as well as pre* 

dieting "who" may be the perpetrators and victims-e.g., which gongs ore likely to be involved)? 

Con we identify "risk factors" for individual mass shooters which are both (a) predictive and (b) con be 

reliably extracted from online data, such as latent user attributes {location, age, gender), socioeconomics 

(poverty), family (divorce, single parents}, access to guns, expressions of violent sentiments, intentions, and 

plans, signs of certain mental illnesses, attitudes toward violence, social relationships (morginaHry, social 

rejection, encouragement by peer groups), etc.? Con administrative data be integrated with online data 

for more accurate risk predictions? 

Can we accurately model both the probability that these risk factors are present given noisy, unstructured 

online data, and estimate the overall risk of violent action given these factors? Given that these are very 

rare events and that the data are both limited and noisy, it is likely that on appropriate role of such moni~ 

taring would be to enable subpopulation-!evel early interventions among high-risk groups (e.g., availability 

of mental health counseling). 

Is there a role for monitoring online data in early warning and rapid response to mass shootings, similar to 

its role in disaster response more generally, to inform low enforcement and potentia! victims? 

Can we understand and develop a framework to inform and encourage best practices of online interven* 

tions at various stages leading up to a potentia! mass shooting {teachers providing online, positive influences; availability of mental health counseling; mitigating negative impacts of social rejection; facilitating 

reporting of potential threats and at-risk individuals in need of help)? 

Can online data from occurrences of "cyberbullying" be captured and analy-zed to understand the causes, 

processes, and impacts of bullying behavior more generally? What are the similarities and differences 

between online and offline bullying behavior (e.g., online anonymity and greater spread of embarrassing 

information), and how do these change the impacts on victims of bullying? 

What ore the risks of mining online data to individual and how can these risks be mitigated 

or eliminated? For example, when ore aggregated counts de~identifled data sufficient to study 

violent behavior? On the other hand, under what conditions is it acceptable to use online data to inter~ 

vene at the individual !eve! {which may not be possible without identifying of-risk individuals)? How ore 

these privacy challenges affected by (a) data from children, {b) the role of parents and schools, and (c) 

public perceptions (e.g., it may not be considered acceptable to mine certain data even if those data 

ore publicly available)? 

GUN POLICY AND YOUTH 

More than 80 percent of homicides involving victims or perpetrators ages 15~24 were committed with firearms, 

as were virtually a!! moss killings committed by youthful perpetrators. Due to developmental and soda I conditions 

mentioned elsewhere, it is critical to reduce access to firearms to youth, especially those with a history of delinquen~ 

cy, crime involvement, and certain mental illnesses. 

The vast majority of youthful handgun offenders acquired their handguns from "street or black market" sources 

or from friends or family. But little is known about how the underground gun market functions for youth. Whereas 

social networks may be key to gun acquisition for urban youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods, youth who use 

guns to commit suicide or corry out rampage shootings typically access guns from parents or dose family members. 

Thus, the following are key questions that should be addressed: 

What is the relationship between minimum age or youth-focused firearm restrictions {e.g., safe storage) and 

youth-perpetrated violence? Is the effectiveness of these lows dependent upon other gun regulations designed 

to deter the diversion of guns to prohibited persons (e.g., universal background checks, licensing provisions)? 

How do penalties and illegal gun suppression tactics by police affect illegal gun carrying and use by 

youth? More studies of gun low effects on youth violence are needed in which intervention and comparison 

jurisdictions have similar levels and trends in youth gun violence before they experiment with new gun poliYomh YJOlencc. \\'hat \\C :\'c,·d 'lfl hnow 
126 

des. We need studies of this kind to establish causal inference in the effectiveness of policies. 

How do factors such as trust in gun sellers, gun characteristics and perceived risks ot 

prosecution affect youth acquisition by youth of firearms? How easily youth adapt to interdiction 

strategies (e.g., access sources outside of state if state gun lows reduce gun diversions)? 

Do youth steal guns opportunistically or target homes, stores, or individuals for gun theft? How important 

ore stolen to the gun market where youth acquire guns? How commonly do youth dis~ 

cord them se!! them, or have them confiscated by parents, police, or school authorities? 

How do youth access ammunition? 

How much do community members know about how youth ore illegally acquiring guns, stashing, and corry~ 

ing guns? How wil!ing would community members be to shore this information on on anonymous basis with 

pollee? 

To what degree and under what conditions do youth shore guns? What are the perceived norms and risks 

associated with gun shoring? 

Con violence interruption and conflict mediation by street outreach workers used to combat urban youth 

violence incorporate efforts to disarm or keep guns from youth engaged in the conflict? 

Similarly, con friends attempt to keep guns from youth planning rampage shootings? 

What is the potential for new technologies {personalized guns) to interrupt violent behavior among youth? 

How will consumers react to the introduction of these new technologies? 

CONCLUSION 

It is estimated that the soda! cost of gun violence is roughly $17 4 billion o year? Beyond this enormous fin on~ 

dol toll, we recognize the devastating emotional impact of lost lives, neighborhood destabillzation1 and fear of 

attack. For children in particular, exposure to violence erodes confidence in social institutions and the society they 

live in. These costs alone fustify the dedication of our federal research agencies and the scientific community to 

understanding the problem of youth violence. 

Researchers ore ready to speak to the concerns of citizens and policymokers, building on many decodes of 

work that informs the suggestions in this report. To do so, collaboration will be necessary across directorates of the 

Notional Science Foundation, since the basic scientific research spans a wide range of disciplines from psychology 

to cognitive science to computer sdence, from sodology to communications, from neurobiology to neuroscience, and 

across the span from pre~natal environments to adolescence. Moreover, the multiple federal research ogen~ 

des that basic science insights and develop policy responses will need to integrate and coordinate their 

efforts. 

Further discussion will be needed to identify immediate and pressing questions that can be assessed rapidly as 

well os the long-term research problems. No single foetor stands alone as on explanation for the violence patterns 

described here and hence it will take o collective effort to solve them. 
127 

Responses by Dr. Maria T. Zuber 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, ANI) TECHNOLOGY 

"An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2019" 

Dr. Maria T. Zuber, Chair, National Science Board 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson House Committee on Science. 

Space and Technology 

I. In response to Congressional direction in the American Innovation and Competitiveness 

Act, NSF released a request for information on the demand for mid-scale research 

infrastructure funding opportunities last year. The FY 2019 budget proposal requests $60 

million for Mid-Scale Research Infrastructure and includes it as one of the Foundation's 

ten Big Ideas. How will the NSB monitor implementation of the mid-scale program? 

Answer: The National Science Board (Board, NSB) has worked closely with NSF senior 

management on mid-scale research infrastructure since issuing its Congressionallvmandatcd 20 II report. The current Big Idea and Budget Request grew out of briefings to, 

and discussions with, the Board on ways to close the ·'mid-scale gap." This gap was a 

recurrent issue cited in NSB · s Annual Portfolio Review of Facilities and in portfolio 

discussions with the MPS, GEO, and CISE directorates. NSB is pleased that NSF has put 

resources toward the Midscale Big Idea in the FY 19 Request. 

NSB will receive regular briefings on NSF's implementation of the Mid-Scale Big Idea, 

monitor its success. and consult with NSF to adjust the program, as needed. Three of 

NSB's standing committees are well positioned to participate in this effort. Once this 

program is in place, I anticipate that the Board's Committee on Awards and Facilities 

will approve mid-scale awards that exceed the threshold set by the Board's Delegation of 

Award Authority (currently approximately $10 million per year) and provide strategic 

guidance and lifecycle oversight. The Board's Committee on Oversight will oversee 

processes for implementing the mid-scale program, including risk management. NSB's 

Committee on Strategy will consult with the Director to assess the mid-scale program, to 

chart a long-term vision for a NSF commitment at the mid-scale level, and to ensure that 

this vision is reflected in FY 2020 and future budget requests. As part of its oversight, 

NSB will ensure that the new program has processes in place to identify and fund the 

most promising opportunities in the "mid-scale gap," enable convergent research, 

monitor fulllifecycle planning for new facilities. and manage non-scientific risks 

appropriately. 

At the same time that NSF will be preparing to implement the Midscale Big Idea, in 

response to a report mandated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, NSB will be 
128 

looking at midscale infrastructure needs and NSF's structures to meet those needs. The 

Act charges the NSB to explore ways to bridge the gap between MRI- and MREFC-scale 

projects and to look at possible use of the MREFC account to fund activities in this space. 

The Board sees this report as a crucial step toward developing an enduring and 

sustainable mid-scale infrastructure program for NSF. This effort will require close 

understanding of ongoing NSF mid-scale activities and thoughtful consideration of the 

budgetary tradeoffs that will be necessary to devote additional resources to mid-scale 

infmstructure. 

Page 2 of2 
(129) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
130 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DANIEL LIPINSKI

OPENING STATEMENT 

Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) 

of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology 

House Committee on Science. Space, and Technology 

"An Overview o(lhe National Science Foundation Budget Proposalfbr Fiscal rear 2019'' 

March 15.2018 

Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson. for holding this important hearing 

on the National Science Foundation's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Proposal. and thanks to our 

witnesses. Dr. Cordova and Dr. Zuber, for being here this morning. 

Authorizing and overseeing NSF is one of the most important responsibilities of our committee 

and one that I take very seriously. NSF is the second-largest federal funder of basic research in 

the U.S., and its impact on our education system, economy. national security. and global 

competitiveness is immense. 

This year's NSF budget leaves much to be desired. While I am pleased to see a small increase in 

the Research and Related Activities Account the main source of grants to universities and 

research institutions, I have concerns about how those funds are allocated among the six research 

directorates. I am also concerned about the fact that the total budget request. close to $7.5 billion. 

is the same as the appropriated level in Fiscal Year 2017. which is significantly lower than the 

Foundation's peak appropriation of$7.7 billion in 2010. The result of flat funding is a slow 

decline in purchasing power that leaves NSF unable to fund many of its top-rated proposals and 

forced to make difficult decisions about critical research facilities. 

While most research directorates received flat funding in the FY 19 request. the SociaL 

Behavioral. and Economic Sciences directorate, or SBE. was targeted for an effective cut of 

ll'Yo. As anyone who watches this committee knows. especially Chairman Smith, I have been an 

extremely forceful and outspoken advocate for SBE research funding. So it should come as no 

surprise that l strongly oppose this cut. According to a 2017 National Academies report on the 

value of SBE to the nation, "Nearly eve1:v major challenge !he Uniled Statesfaces-:fi'om 

alleviating unemployment ro protecting itselfjhnn terrorism--~requires understanding the causes 

and consequences oj'people 's behavior.·· Underfunding this research could have dire 

consequences. 

Undervaluing the Social, Behavioral. and Economic Sciences also has the potential to undermine 

the effectiveness of at least one of the Ten Big Ideas. The "Future of Work at the HumanTechnology Frontier" Idea was developed within the SBE directorate and will depend heavily on 

the social sciences for its success. However. primary responsibility for this Idea was given to the 

Engineering Directorate. With Engineering running the program and with reduced funding levels 

for SBE. we reinforce the false notion that social and behavioral questions are less important in 

this area of inquiry. 

I would like to make another point about the Ten Big Ideas. While I support interdisciplinary and 

convergent research. and I support allocating funding to such initiatives, which this budget does 
131 

Æ 

for the tirst time. I do not support doing so at the expense of funding core disciplinary research. 

Convergence initiatives have the potential to amplify the impact of research in the core 

disciplines. But if we scale back directorate funding, we risk eroding the disciplinary expertise 

that must come together to make convergence research successfuL 

At a time when we have allowed NSF's purchasing power to decline with years of flat funding. 

and when we have significant additional budgetary authority available, now is a critical time to 

increase the NSF budget. At a bare minimum, we should be making inflationary increases to all 

research directorates, and should not force funds for the Ten Big Ideas to come at the expense of 

disciplinary research. 

Our federal R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest point since at least the 

1950s and we have fallen well behind our global peers. currently ranking l 0'11 globally. If we 

continue to undcrfund federal research agencies. we risk letting our scientific enterprise atrophy, 

doing irreparable harm to our global competitiveness and our future economic success. 

Thank you and I yield back.