U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

55–841PDF 2010

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION’S FISCAL

YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 10, 2010

Serial No. 111–83

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

VACANCY 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director 

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member 

MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member 

BESS CAUGHRAN Democratic Professional Staff Member 

MOLLY O’ROURKE Research Assistant 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

March 10, 2010

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

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

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science 

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

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

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

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 11

Witnesses:

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

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

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

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

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25

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

(1)

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
2
3

HEARING CHARTER

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 

The National Science Foundation’s

FY 2011 Budget Request 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, March 10, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 

of the. House Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to examine 

the priorities in the National Science Foundation’s FY 2011 budget request. In addition, in preparation for reauthorization of the 2007 America COMPETES Act, the 

Subcommittee will examine core activities, initiatives, and policy directions for research, infrastructure, education and workforce training at the Foundation.

2. Witnesses

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

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

3. Overarching questions

• What is the status of the National Science Foundation’s efforts to implement the 

provisions of the 2007 America COMPETES Act? Are there programs or requirements that NSF was not able to implement as intended? If so, why not?

• What are NSF’s priorities for K–12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, including its STEM teacher training programs? How 

does the current budget request reflect those priorities? What are NSF’s plans for 

the new Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM program? What are 

NSF’s priorities for graduate education and training and how does the budget request reflect those priorities? How is NSF’s mission to broaden participation in 

STEM integrated into the full portfolio of education programs? How does NSF 

evaluate its STEM education and broadening participation programs?

• What is NSF’s vision for the role of institutions of higher education in the development or sustainability of regional or national innovation ecosystems that facilitate economic growth through commercialization and creation of new businesses? 

How do the Partnerships for Innovation program and other programs at the Foundation fit into this vision? How can these programs be designed to include diverse 

types of institutions and address workforce training needs at all levels of higher 

education?

• What is NSF’s role in helping to maintain research infrastructure and instrumentation that enables the most cutting edge science and engineering research? By 

what mechanisms does the Foundation support such infrastructure and instrumentation? What challenges did NSF face in implementing the Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program under the 2009 Recovery Act? What is the 

role of the Foundation in supporting mid-size instrumentation that falls between 

instrumentation allowable under the Major Research Instrumentation program 

and major facilities funded under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities 

Construction account?

4. Overview of NSF FY 2011 Budget Request

The National Science Foundation (NSF) budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2011 

totals $7.424 billion, $552 million or 8.0 percent more than. FY 2010 funding (not 

including any FY 2010 carryover in the $3.0 billion included for NSF in the Recov-
4

1http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings¥markups¥details.aspx?NewsID=2743

ery Act). However, when funding for U.S. Coast Guard Icebreakers ($54 million) is 

counted appropriately, the real growth is 7.2 percent. This level of funding keeps 

NSF on a ten-year doubling path. (More detail on the icebreaker discrepancy is provided below.)

Research and Related Activities (R&RA)

Overview

The Administration’s budget would provide $6.02 billion for R&RA in FY 2011, 

an increase of $401 million or 7.1 percent over FY 2010 funding. The largest relative 

increases went to the Engineering Directorate (ENG, +11 percent) and the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate (CISE, +10.6 percent). 

The Geosciences Directorate (GEO), which funds atmospheric, earth and ocean 

sciences, including most of NSF’s climate change research; and the Biological 

Sciences Directorate (BIO), which funds 68 percent of all non-medical academic research in the life sciences, including environmental biology, also saw greater than 

seven percent increases. The Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate 

(SBE) received a 5.3 percent increase, and the Mathematical and Physical Sciences 

Directorate (MPS), the largest by far at NSF with a proposed budget of $1.41 billion 

in FY 2011, received a 4.3 percent increase from FY 2010.

Innovation at NSF

The Administration’s R&RA priorities for FY 2011 include a significant increase 

in funding for three programs labeled by NSF as ‘‘innovation’’ programs, including 

Partnerships for Innovation ($19.2 million), Science and Engineering Beyond 

Moore’s Law ($70.2 million), and NSF’s Centers programs ($313.8 million across 

NSF).

Cyberlearning

The Foundation is proposing to establish a new multidisciplinary, multi-directorate research program called Cyberlearning Transforming Education, funded 

at $41 million in FY 2011. ‘Cyberlearning’ is defined as the use of networked computing and communications technologies to support learning.

Polar Icebreakers

In 2005, NSF signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Coast 

Guard (USCG) in which NSF agreed to take over maintenance and operations budgetary authority for USCG icebreakers operating in the Arctic and Antarctic. The rationale for the MOU was that the majority of the USCG icebreakers time was dedicated to supporting NSF’s science missions at the Poles. In FY 2010, the Appropriators required that budgetary authority be shifted back to USCG, and provided FY 

2010 appropriations accordingly. As a result, $54 million is excluded from the FY 

2010 NSF budget total, thereby obscuring the true growth in funding for NSF’s programs. This issue remains unresolved between Congress and the Administration.

Research Infrastructure

Approximately 24 percent ($1.77 billion) of NSF’s FY 2011 budget is devoted to 

research infrastructure. In addition to support for major facility construction under 

the MREFC account (below), this total includes support from within the R&RA account for: pre-construction design, and maintenance and operations for MREFC 

projects; major research instrumentation ($90 million), federally funded R&D centers, and polar facilities and logistics. For a detailed explanation of the challenges 

of academic facilities modernization and the Academic Research Infrastructure

(ARI) program in particular, refer to the charter from the February 23 subcommittee hearing on that topic.1

Education and Human Resources (EHR)

The Education and Human Resources Directorate would be funded at $892 million 

in FY 2011, an increase of only $19.2 million or 2.2 percent over FY 2010 funding. 

The Administration continues to offer a mixed message regarding this treatment of 

EHR relative to the healthy increase for R&RA. On the one hand, they point out 

that funding for EHR alone represents an incomplete picture of the many education 
5

and training programs and activities distributed across NSF. On the other hand, 

they maintain that NSF is primarily a research agency and that the Department 

of Education (ED) has a greater responsibility for education, especially at the K–

12 level. Significant funding ($450 million) is requested for STEM specific programs 

at ED in the FY 2011 budget. We understand from both NSF and ED staff that the 

partnership and cooperation between the two agencies has increased markedly in 

the last year.

COMPETES Programs

In the FY 2011 budget, the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program would be 

funded at $55 million, the same level since FY 2009, and Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) would be funded at $58.2 million, the same level as in FY 2010 

and a small decrease from FY 2009 funding. Both Noyce and MSP received significant funding in the Recovery Act ($60 million and $25 million, respectively). 

At the graduate level, the Administration has pledged to triple the number of 

NSF graduate research fellows (GRF) to 3000 by 2013, and has provided a 16 

percent increase to $158 million for GRF in the FY 2011 proposal. NSF has an additional graduate student training program called Integrative Graduate Education 

and Research Traineeship (IGERT), for which the Foundation proposes a decrease of 11 percent to $62 million in FY 2011. Both programs are funded from both 

EHR and R&RA, with IGERT split evenly between the directorates and GRF receiving two-thirds of its funding from ERR. GRF is important in that it provides individual students with flexibility in the research they pursue rather than being tied 

to a particular investigator’s grant, but the program does not involve any additional 

professional development for its fellows or involve the institution in any way. 

IGERT, on the other hand, creates student cohorts working on interdisciplinary 

projects that allow them to develop both individual and teamwork skills, and has 

the additional goal of catalyzing broader, cultural changes in graduate STEM education at participating institutions. In COMPETES, Congress required that both of 

these excellent and important programs grow at the same rate. 

Two additional EHR programs highlighted in COMPETES, the two-year college 

Advanced Technological Education Program ($64 million), and the STEM Talent Expansion Program ($32.5 million) were both flat funded in the FY 2011 request.

Broadening Participation

Of particular note in the EHR budget is the proposed restructuring of programs 

to broaden participation in STEM at the undergraduate level. NSF is proposing a 

new comprehensive broadening participation program that builds on three existing 

programs: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU–UP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation

(LSAMP) and Tribal Colleges Undergraduate Program (TCUP), and newly invites proposals from Hispanic Serving Institutions, citing the mandate in Sec. 7033 

of the COMPETES Act. Funding for this newly consolidated program would be $103 

million in FY 2011, a $13 million or 14.4 percent increase from the total FY 2010 

funding for HBCU–UP, LSAMP and TCUP. 

In the budget narrative, NSF describes this consolidation as ‘‘combining expertise 

developed previously in separate programs in order to promote opportunities to 

build sustainable partnerships and alliances among [institutions] with a strong 

track record in producing underrepresented STEM graduates, thereby building capacity for the STEM field across a range of institutions.’’ Members of various constituent communities have expressed concern about possible unintended consequences of this consolidation and about the lack of transparency by which the consolidation was conceived and developed. On March 16, our subcommittee will hold 

a hearing to examine Federal programs to broaden participation in STEM.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) 

The MREFC account supports large, multi-user facilities, distributed instrumentation networks, or large pieces of equipment such as telescopes, research vessels, or 

accelerators that benefit an entire scientific discipline and could not be achieved 

without significant Federal support. 

The MREFC request for FY 2011 is $165 million, an increase of $41 million from 

FY 2010. MREFC also received $400 million in the Recovery Act to initiate construction on three projects: The Alaska Region Research Vessel, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope, and the Ocean Observatories Initiative, two of which will 

continue to receive funding in FY 2011. The only new start in FY 2011 is the Na-
6

tional Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), which passed final design review in 

November.

NSF FY 2011 BUDGET REQUEST 

NSF Program Activity FY 2009 

Actual *

FY 2010 

Plan 

FY 2011 

Request 

Change over FY 2010

Amount % Change 

Research and Related 

Activities (R&RA) 7215.0 5563.9 6018.8 455 8.2%

Biological Sciences 916.6 714.5 767.8 53 7.5%

Computer S&E (ClSE) 809.5 618.8 684.5 66 10.6%

Engineering 930.0 743.9 825.7 82 11.0%

Geosciences 1155.5 889.6 955.3 66 7.4%

Math & Physical 

Sciences 1718.9 1351.8 1409.9 58 4.3%

Social, Behavioral and 

Economic Sciences 325.5 255.3 268.8 14 5.3%

Cyberinfrastructure 279.2 214.3 228.1 14 6.4%

International S&E 61.4 47.8 53.3 5 11.4%

Polar Programs 645.4 451.2 528.0 76.8 17.0%

Education and Human 

Resources (EHR) 930.5 872.8 892.0 19.2 2.2%

Research on Learning 226.7 242.0 247.9 5.8 2.4%

Undergraduate 

Education 368.1 292.4 290.0 Ø2.4 Ø0.8%

MSP 86.0 58.2 58.2 0.0 0.0%

Noyce Scholarships 115.0 55.0 55.0 0.0 0.0%

Grad Research and 

Education 181.7 181.4 185.3 3.8 2.1%

Human Resources 

Develop. 154.1 156.9 168.9 12.0 7.6%

MREFC 414.8 117.3 165.2 47.9 40.8%

Agency Operations 

(AOAM) 294.1 300.0 329.2 29.2 9.7%

Inspector General (OIG) 12.0 14.0 14.4 0.4 2.5%

Nat. Science Board 

(NSB) 4.0 4.5 4.8 0.3 6.6%

AGENCY TOTAL 6468.8 6872.5 7424.4 551.9 8.0%

* includes ARRA funding 
7

NSF Participation in Major Interagency Initiatives (USGCRP, NNI, and NITRD)

U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program (USGCRP)

Started in 1989, the USGCRP is an interagency effort comprised of 13 departments and agencies. Activities of the USGCRP are grouped under the following 

areas: improving knowledge of Earth’s past and present climate variability and 

change; improving understanding of natural and human forces of climate change; 

improving capability to model and predict future conditions and impacts; assessing 

the Nation’s vulnerability to current and anticipated impacts of climate change; and 

improving the Nation’s ability to respond to climate change by providing climate information and decision support tools that are useful to policymakers and the general 

public. Overall, the Administration proposes $2.56 billion for USGCRP in the FY 

2011 budget, a $439 million (21 percent) increase over FY 2010 enacted. Likewise, 

climate change science is the cross-cutting area of research at NSF that received 

the most significant boost in the FY 2011 budget request. The Foundation’s investment in USGCRP would increase by $50 million (16 percent) to $370 million in FY 

2011. The most significant increase ($27 million) would go toward research on climate variability and change across temporal and spatial scales.

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

The Science and Technology (S&T) Committee was instrumental in the development and enactment of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–153), which authorizes the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The NNI focuses on R&D that creates materials, devices, and systems 

that exploit the fundamentally distinct properties of matter as it is manipulated at 

the nanoscale. Currently, 13 agencies report a nanotechnology R&D budget. Overall, 

the Administration proposes $1.8 billion for NNI in the FY 2011 budget, a $5 million decrease from FY 2010 enacted. The Foundation’s investment in NNI would decrease by $16 million (3.9 percent) to $401 million in FY 2011. However, two specific 

research areas under NNI would receive an increase at NSF: nanomanufacturing 

and environmental, health and safety research.

Networking and Information Technology R&D Program (NITRD)

Similarly, the S&T Committee was instrumental in the development of the multiagency Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD) program through the 

High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102–194). The mission of the NITRD 

program is to accelerate progress in the advancement of computing and networking 

technologies and to support leading edge computational research in a range of 

science and engineering fields. Currently, 13 Federal agencies report a NITRD budget. Overall, the Administration proposes $4.3 billion for NITRD in the FY 2011 

budget, a decrease of $9 million from FY 2010 enacted. The Foundation’s investment 

in NITRD would increase by $80 million (7.3 percent) to $1.17 billion in FY 2011. 

This increase is spread across all but one of the NITRD program component areas.
8

Chairman LIPINSKI. This hearing will now come to order. 

Good morning, and welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearing on the National Science Foundation’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget request. In addition to reviewing the budget request, we will be examining the status of NSF programs authorized under the 2007 America COMPETES Act and discussing 

opportunities to further strengthen NSF’s research and education 

missions through targeted programs and policies. 

I was very pleased to see the President’s strong increases for 

NSF being proposed in the President’s budget, especially in these 

tough budget times. I believe that overall, this reflects the President’s commitment to our future economic growth and his understanding that such growth is tied very strongly to the investments 

we make in science and innovation today. I look forward to hearing 

from Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering about some of the new research 

initiatives and directions being proposed in this budget. 

But before I begin, I would like to spend a couple of minutes laying out some of my concerns. First, this Administration, and the 

President himself, has made a strong commitment to STEM 

[Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] education, and I do not 

underestimate the impact of having the President himself publicly 

engaged on this critical issue. But once again the Administration 

is proposing a budget for NSF’s Education directorate that barely 

keeps pace with inflation. I support an increased role for the Department of Education in STEM education and am happy to hear 

that collaboration between the agencies has increased markedly in 

the last year. But NSF has a long, rich and successful history in 

supporting STEM education activities and programs, and a unique 

expertise that the Department of Education cannot effectively duplicate. I worry about both the statement being made by the request and the consequences flat funding would have for NSF’s excellent programs. 

Second, this subcommittee held a hearing just a couple of weeks 

ago on academic research infrastructure. I know that we are still 

waiting to see what impacts the Recovery Act ARI [Academic Research Infrastructure] program will have, and that there are some 

concerns that infrastructure funding could potentially cut into research funding. But I also have concerns that we are not investing 

our research dollars as effectively as we could be if we invested 

first in modernizing our research facilities. So I look forward to discussing ways that the Federal Government can help support the 

critical modernization of academic research infrastructure. This is 

an issue that is becoming increasingly critical as state universities 

have seen significant budget cuts and all universities have experienced shrunken endowments and an increased need to provide financial aid. 

Finally, I would like to understand the justification for the decrease in funding for nanotechnology research under the NNI [National Nanotechnology Initiative] program. In 2007, $60 billion in 

nano-enabled products were sold, and it is predicted that the number will rise to $2.6 trillion by 2014. That is a pretty staggering 

number. Surely we should be investing more, not less, in this important area of research. 
9

And finally, Dr. Bement, and Dr. Beering, I want to take this opportunity this morning to thank you for your service. As most of 

you know, Dr. Bement will be leaving his post as the Director of 

NSF on June 1st. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate 

Dr. Bement on his new position at Purdue and thank him for his 

years of service to the government and to the entire scientific community. You are not leaving quite yet, Dr. Bement, and we are still 

planning to pass the COMPETES reauthorization in the House before your departure date, so I look forward to working with you 

closely as we develop this legislation over the next several weeks. 

I understand that Dr. Beering is also coming to the end of his 

term as Chair of the National Science Board this May, and I thank 

you, Dr. Beering, for your service and wish both of you success in 

your future endeavors. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL LIPINSKI

Good morning and welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 2011 budget request. In addition to reviewing the budget request, we will be examining the status of NSF programs authorized under the 2007 America COMPETES Act and discussing opportunities to further strengthen NSF’s research and education missions through targeted 

programs and policies. 

I was very pleased to see the strong increases for NSF being proposed in the 

President’s budget, especially in these tough budget times. I believe that overall, 

this budget reflects the President’s commitment to our future economic growth and 

understanding that such growth is tied very strongly to the investments we make 

in science and innovation today. I look forward to hearing from Dr. Bement and Dr. 

Beering about some of the new research initiatives and directions being proposed 

in this budget. 

But before we begin, I would like to spend a couple of minutes laying out some 

of my concerns. First, this Administration, and the President himself, has made a 

strong commitment to STEM education, and I do not underestimate the impact of 

having the President himself publicly engaged on this critical issue. But once again 

the Administration is proposing a budget for NSF’s Education directorate that barely keeps pace with inflation. I support an increased role for the Department of Education in STEM education and am happy to hear that collaboration between the 

agencies has increased markedly in the last year. But NSF has a long, rich, and 

successful history in supporting STEM education activities and programs, and a 

unique expertise that the Department of Education cannot effectively duplicate; I 

worry about both the statement being made by the request and the consequences 

flat funding would have for NSF’s excellent programs. 

Second, this subcommittee held a hearing just a couple of weeks ago on academic 

research infrastructure. I know that we are still waiting to see what impacts the 

Recovery Act ARI program will have, and that there are some concerns that infrastructure funding could potentially cut into research funding. But I also have concerns that we are not investing our research dollars as effectively as we could be 

if we invested first in modernizing our research facilities. So I look forward to discussing ways that the Federal Government can help support the critical modernization of academic research infrastructure. This is an issue that is becoming increasingly critical as state universities have seen significant budget cuts and all universities have experienced shrunken endowments and an increased need for financial 

aid. 

Finally, I would like to understand the justification for the decrease in funding 

for nanotechnology research under the NNI program. In 2007, $60 billion in nanoenabled products were sold; and it is predicted that the number will rise to $2.6 

trillion by 2014. That’s a pretty staggering number. Surely we should be investing 

more, not less, in this very important area of research. 

Dr. Bement, and Dr. Beering, thank you for taking the time to appear before the 

subcommittee this morning. As most of you know Dr. Bement will be leaving his 

post as the Director of NSF on June 1. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. Bement on his new position at Purdue and thank him for his years of service to the government and to the entire scientific community. You’re not leaving 
10

quite yet Dr. Bement, and we are still planning to pass the COMPETES Reauthorization in the House before your departure date, so I look forward to working with 

you closely as we develop this legislation over the next several weeks. 

I understand that Dr. Beering is also coming to the end of his term as chair of 

the National Science Board this May. Thank you Dr. Beering for your service, and 

I wish both of you success in your future endeavors.

Chairman LIPINSKI. With that, the Chair will now recognize Dr. 

Ehlers for an opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Administration has 

requested substantial increases in funding for the National Science 

Foundation. I am pleased the funding request continues the Foundation on a path to doubling its budget, although that path has had 

a rather bumpy start over the last several years. I do join with my 

colleague in thanking the President for increasing the funding for 

the National Science Foundation and for his support of science in 

general. 

I do, however, express the same concerns he has about the funding of the education area. The budget request proposes some targeted investments at the National Science Foundation in the areas 

of innovation, cyberlearning and graduate education. It also proposes some restructuring of the programs targeted at broadening 

participation at the undergraduate levels in science and engineering. I look forward to learning more about these proposals from our 

witnesses today, but I am very disappointed with the funding provided in the request for K–12 educational activities within the Education and Human Resources directorate. Although the NSF has 

defended the successes of the Math and Science Partnership program, no increase is requested for this program or for the Noyce 

program, which also focuses on training teachers for K–12 positions. This is a longstanding problem. Under the previous Administration as well, funding for NSF in this area was cut on the basis 

that the Department of Education was taking over. The programs 

are totally different, and just because they are both sometimes 

called Math and Science Partnership programs doesn’t mean they 

are identical. We must continue to support the good work that the 

National Science Foundation does in this area and recognize that 

that good work is foundational to whatever the Department of Education wishes to do. 

I have met with the Secretary of Education on this and also his 

new assistant in this area, Michael Lach, who is a marvelous person and has done great things in various school systems, particular 

the Chicago school system, and they understand the issue. We have 

to make sure that the President and the Office of Management and 

Budget understand the issue as well and continue strong support 

for the National Science Foundation activities in STEM education. 

So although the NSF has defended the successes of the program, 

no increase is requested for this program, as I said, or for the 

Noyce program, which is of very long standing, and I hope that we 

can reverse that through the appropriations process. 

Several other programs focused on our innovative workforce, 

such as the Advanced Technological Education program, are also 

flat funded. As we consider reauthorization of the COMPETES Act, 

these NSF programs have the potential to make great impacts on 

science, technology, engineering and math education in this coun-
11

try, and I would also add, even though it fits within the math part 

of the STEM program, I want to emphasize the importance of getting caught up in computer science again. We are not doing well 

in that particular area in this Nation. We must increase the interest in computer science in the elementary and secondary schools 

and certainly must increase the number of computer scientists that 

we are developing, particularly as we as a Nation worry more 

about cybersecurity. 

The current budget, despite providing for the doubling of the 

overall NSF budget, does not emphasize the importance of STEM 

education to our country’s economic competitiveness. That is a 

very, very important point. I look forward to hearing from our excellent witnesses today about the new additions proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget and how we can work together to strength the 

COMPETES Act. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

In the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Administration has requested substantial increases in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF). I am pleased 

the funding request continues the Foundation on a path to doubling its budget, although that path has had a rather bumpy start over the last several years. 

The budget request proposes some targeted investments at the NSF in the areas 

of innovation, cyberlearning, and graduate education. It also proposes some restructuring of the programs targeted at broadening participation at the undergraduate 

levels in science and engineering. I look forward to learning more about these proposals from our witnesses today. 

Finally, I am disappointed with the funding provided in the request for K–12 educational activities within the Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate. 

Although the NSF has defended the successes of the Math and Science Partnerships 

program, no increase is requested for this program, or for the Noyce Program, which 

also focuses on training teachers for K–12 positions. Several other programs focused 

on our innovative workforce, such as the Advanced Technological Education program, are also flat-funded. As we consider reauthorization of the COMPETES Act,

these NSF programs have the potential to make great impacts on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in this country. The current budget, despite providing for the doubling of the overall NSF budget, does not emphasize 

the importance of STEM education to our country’s economic competitiveness. 

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

in the FY 11 budget and how we can work together to strengthen the COMPETES 

Act.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, and if there are 

Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your 

statements will be added to the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The National Science Foundation funding request of 7.424 billion supports a vision to double its budget within ten years. 

As the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering, NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally funded basic research by America’s colleges and universities. 

I am convinced that an investment in NSF will help ensure our future viability 

and competitiveness as a nation. In order to strengthen our science and technology 

workforce, infrastructure, and spark the curiosity of young minds to innovate the 

next technological feat, we must strengthen these critical programs. 

It is a mistake to underestimate the importance of basic research in the physical 

sciences. A basic, fundamental understanding of all branches of science is needed 

in order to lay down the foundation for applied science. 
12

Our country is falling behind in graduating students with advanced STEM degrees because they are falling behind at an early age. In order for America to regain 

its global competitive leadership in the sciences it’s going to take an effort from us 

all to rebuild our workforce from the ground up. We need higher salaries and better 

preparation for teachers. We need better resources and access to technology available to all of students can have the same opportunities. We need a commitment 

from those who do graduate in these disciplines to reach back down the pipeline and 

help inspire more to enter these fields. We need effective legislation that can be the 

spark towards increased STEM interest, study, and practice. We have to cultivate, 

sustain, and prepare students from the beginning to ensure they make it through 

to the end. 

Dr. Bement, on February 25, 2010 it was my pleasure to address the seventh annual NSF ITEST Summit. I enjoyed speaking with some of the personal investigators, and the ITEST project personnel in attendance. Allowing students to use the 

same technology as scientists and engineers at an early age will help inspire our 

youth to believe in themselves. 

There are many examples of critical support that NSF has provided to Texas researchers. NSF grants are extremely important for researchers in my homestate of 

Texas. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee is tasked with helping NSF do its job 

well. 

If we want to cultivate domestic, home-grown talent in the sciences, we simply 

must increase the funds NSF can use for research grants, Mr. Chairman. 

We must strengthen our workforce diversity. Women and minorities need greater 

attention in NSF’s programmatic agenda. Although blacks, Hispanics, and American 

Indians as a group are more than 23 percent of the U.S. population, they are only 

13 percent of science and engineering bachelor’s degree recipients. 

By NSF’s own calculations, underrepresented minorities as a whole are only six 

percent of the science and engineering labor force. 

This is unacceptable. Doctor Bement and Doctor Beering, I know the task of 

prioritizing the many aspects of NSF’s mission is difficult. I ask that you increase 

efforts to increase minority participation and to help young investigators. Tomorrow’s workforce is counting on you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Dr. Arden 

Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation, and Dr. 

Steven Beering is Chair of the National Science Board. As our witnesses certainly know, you will each have five minutes for your 

spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the 

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

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

five minutes to question the panel. 

We will start here with Dr. Bement. 

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and 

Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you 

today. 

The essence of the President’s 2011 budget request for the National Science Foundation is to reaffirm the agency’s roots as the 

Nation’s wellspring of scientific innovation. NSF’s 2011 request is 

$7.4 billion, an increase of eight percent over 2010. This keeps us 

on the road to the President’s goal in the America COMPETES Act

to double NSF’s budget. But as with any budget, this request reflects tough choices and clear priorities. It recognizes NSF’s unique 

national responsibility for supporting basic research, our catalytic 

role in education, and the ongoing need for investments in stewardship. 
13

NSF’s research and education agenda is both multifaceted and 

well rounded. It is designed very deliberately to support the Administration’s plan of making innovation a centerpiece of economic 

strength and future well-being. The main driver for this investment 

is the National Innovation Strategy. Nothing speaks more to what 

NSF is and does than the Administration’s commitment to fundamental research, and it is emphasized throughout the budget. 

When you talk about the building blocks of innovation, you talk 

about NSF. You will also see NSF at the forefront of educating the 

next generation with 21st century knowledge and skills. Let me 

highlight the programs that are central to this goal. 

The Advanced Technological Education [ATE] program supports 

new and enhanced two-year college programs that educate technicians for the high-technology workforce. The Graduate Research 

Fellowship [GRF] and Faculty Career Development programs support students and early career investigators to foster the Nation’s 

next generation of scientists and engineers. Climate Change Education addresses learning at all levels and is designed to stimulate 

interest in careers in climate science. NSF programs also support 

next-generation information technology and secure cyberspace. 

NSF will support the interagency Networking and Information 

Technology R&D program at $1.17 billion. 

Overcoming challenges inherent in today’s great scientific questions will require a new computer revolution to overcome the physical restrictions of today’s silicone chip-based technology. NSF’s 

Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law is a multidisciplinary research program designed to enhance our Nation’s economic competitiveness. The program’s name refers to the proposition that computer processing power based on semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18 months. We are rapidly 

reaching the physical limitation of that progress. 

NSF must continue to innovate in tracking the large-scale scientific and engineering challenges of our age, including understanding the nature and scope of changes in the earth’s climate. 

NSF contributes multiple resources to support the U.S. Global 

Change Research program and other interagency initiatives that 

are helping us understand and confront the global challenge of a 

changing climate. NSF’s contribution to the U.S. Global Change 

Research program is proposed to increase by 16 percent to $370 

million. 

Also in 2011, NSF will spend $766 million on a portfolio of activities called Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability. 

It will seek integrated approaches to increased U.S. energy independence, enhanced environmental stewardship and reduce energy 

use and carbon intensity while generating continued economic 

growth. 

Re-gaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge, or RE–

ENERGYSE, is a new $19 million program to help the Nation regain its leadership in science and engineering by attracting and 

educating future scientists in the clean energy field. NSF will jointly fund RE–ENERGYSE with the Department of Energy to prepare 

as many as 8,500 highly trained young scientists and engineers for 

clean energy careers by 2015. Additionally, RE–ENERGYSE will 

provide training of technicians for clean energy industries. 
14

NSF’s request includes $20 million in its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account to begin construction of 

the National Ecological Observatory Network, or NEON. NEON is 

a multifaceted project with a total projected budget of $434 million 

spread out over the next six fiscal years. NEON will collect data 

on the effects of climate change, changes in land use, and invasive 

species on national resources and biodiversity. NEON will be the 

first observatory network designed to detect and enable forecasting 

of ecological change at the continental scale over multiple decades. 

As with any budget, the most important information is the message beyond the numbers. In fiscal year 2011, that message is the 

Administration’s commitment to innovation and economic growth 

through science and engineering. The Foundation is pleased to be 

playing an important role in that effort. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, as this will likely 

be the last time I testify before you before leaving on June 1st, I 

want to make certain that you are aware of how deeply appreciative I am of your support over the past nine years as director 

at NIST and NSF. I also want to make a special note of wishing 

well Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Baird in their future 

activities as they leave this committee, and I have enjoyed a very 

long and close relationship with both of you and I hope that will 

continue in our new activities. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR. 

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am pleased to appear before you this morning. 

My testimony will focus principally on NSF’s FY 2011 Budget Request. In doing 

so, however, I will highlight those aspects of the Request that have direct bearing 

on the upcoming reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act (ACA). Since its 

enactment in August 2007, the ACA has informed the priorities and investment 

strategies at NSF. There are countless aspects of the FY 2011 request—from the 

commitment to young investigators to new approaches to fostering high-risk, highreward research—that directly reflect the ACA. 

This begins with the bottom line: The National Science Foundation (NSF) proposes a fiscal year 2011 investment of $7.42 billion, an increase of $552 million—

or 8 percent—over the fiscal year 2010 amount. This increase reflects the Administration’s continued resolve to double funding for three key science agencies, including NSF. 

The National Science Foundation is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. For 

60 years, we have been exploring the frontiers of scientific knowledge and extending 

the reach of engineering by encouraging, identifying, and funding the best ideas and 

most promising people. The high-risk, potentially transformative investments we 

make generate important discoveries and new technology, create and train a dynamic workforce, and spark the curiosity and creativity of millions. Our investments 

in research and education help ensure that our Nation remains globally competitive, 

prosperous, and secure. 

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

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

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

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

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

engineering provide the fuel. 

While the United States still far outpaces the world in its level of public and private R&D investment and research output, our counterparts around the globe are 

well aware of the importance of funding R&D. As is highlighted in the just released 

2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, the world’s R&D expenditures have been 
15

1http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest10/global.cfm#4

2 Augustine, Norman. Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? National Academies Press 

on an 11-year doubling path, growing faster than total global economic output. 

While the growth of annual U.S. R&D expenditures averaged around six percent, 

China, for example, has invested in R&D at an annual growth of over 22 percent 

during the same period of time.1

Most recently, Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, released a 

follow-up to ‘‘The Gathering Storm’’ report entitled, ‘‘Is America Falling Off the Flat 

Earth?’’ His message is clear: ‘‘Unless substantial investments are made to the engine of innovation basic scientific research and development—the current generation 

may be the first in our country’s history to leave their children and grandchildren 

a lower sustained standard of living.’’ 2

For sixty years, NSF has been a steward of the nation’s science and engineering 

enterprise. NSF investments in discovery, learning, and innovation have been important to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national 

security and overall quality of life. 

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

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

just four percent of the total Federal budget for research and development, but accounts for over sixty percent of Federal support of non-life science basic research 

at academic institutions. For example, NSF’s share of Federal support for basic research in computer sciences at academic institutions in FY 2008 was over 80%. NSF 

is the research funding lifeline for many fields and emerging interdisciplinary areas 

at the frontiers of discovery. In fact, NSF is the only Federal agency that supports 

all fields of basic science and engineering research. 

NSF-funded research is characterized by its breadth. NSF prioritizes the integration of education into its research programs, and takes into account the broader societal impacts of the work it funds, such as the training that students and young 

researchers receive in the research process, and the educational opportunities the 

work and its people can then provide to the larger community of K–16 students and 

teachers and the general public. 

NSF’s comprehensive and flexible support of meritorious projects with broad societal impacts enables the Foundation to identify and foster both fundamental and 

transformative discoveries within and among fields of inquiry. NSF has the latitude 

to support emerging fields, high-risk ideas, interdisciplinary collaborations, and research that pushes, and even transforms, the very frontiers of knowledge. In these 

ways, NSF’s discoveries inspire the American public—and the world. 

NSF’s organization mirrors science and engineering. Its portfolio spans the biological sciences, computer and information science and engineering, engineering, 

geosciences, mathematics and physical sciences, and social, behavioral, and economic sciences—encompassing both research and education in these areas. NSF also 

carries out specific national responsibilities for polar programs, cyberinfrastructure, 

international science and engineering, and a range of responsibilities related to the 

nation’s overall capabilities in science and engineering, including statistical resources on the overall U.S. and international R&D enterprise. The 25-member National Science Board sets the overall policies of the Foundation. 

The cornerstone of NSF is the merit-based, competitive process that fosters the 

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

2011 Budget Request Highlights

At NSF, we understand that new discoveries are a driving force behind societal 

progress. As the nation’s premier funding agency for basic research, our mission is 

to advance the frontiers of knowledge, where high-risk, high-reward research can 

lay the foundation for revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems. The NSF budget for 2011 reflects this vital agenda, and I’m pleased to present 

it to you today. 

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

$7.42 billion for the NSF in FY 2011. That’s an increase of almost $552 million, or 

eight percent above the current 2010 appropriated amount. While it seems like a 

large increase, this level is necessary to fulfill the President’s vision for doubling the 

National Science Foundation’s budget. This increased investment will reinforce 

NSF’s leadership in basic science and engineering and allow us to preserve America’s preeminence in the global technology economy. 

In this year’s proposed budget, funding levels increase for every NSF appropriations account. Research and Related Activities investments increase by 8.2 percent, 
16

and our Education and Human Resources account is increased by 2.2 percent. We 

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

to maintain our standing in the global marketplace, and to keep our students engaged and ready to perform in the global workforce. Our budget includes increases 

for every Directorate and Office within NSF. But, as with any budget, the FY 2011 

Request reflects tough choices and clear priorities. It recognizes NSF’s unique national responsibility for supporting basic research, our catalytic role in education, 

and the ongoing need for investments in stewardship. 

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

2011 budget.

NATIONAL INNOVATION STRATEGY

NSF’s contribution to the Administration’s A Strategy for American Innovation,

announced by the President in September 2009, stems from its longstanding role in 

strengthening the building blocks of American innovation. This begins with investing in fundamental research and educating the next generation of scientists and engineers. It also includes more focused research on topics that advance vital capabilities—such as sustainability, secure networks, and leading-edge technologies—and 

fostering and facilitating partnerships that reach across today’s global innovation 

enterprises. 

Maintain American Leadership in Fundamental Research. Since innovation 

depends on the foundation of earlier investments, NSF’s foremost responsibility in 

innovation is to continue to support fundamental research and education in all fields 

of science and engineering. The President’s Plan for Science and Innovation aims 

to double the Federal investment in three key basic research agencies over FY 2006 

levels. This investment will be vital to the effort to increase national R&D investments to three percent of Gross Domestic Product. 

Educate the Next Generation with 21st Century Knowledge and Skills 

While Creating a World-Class Workforce. Two NSF programs described in this 

Request support the Strategy’s educational goals.

• The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program, (16.4 percent increase to $158.24 million); an Administration priority, supports the development of the Nation’s future scientists and engineers. FY 2009 marked the beginning of a growth trajectory to triple the number of new awards made each 

year to 3,000 by FY 2013.

• RE-gaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge (RE–

ENERGYSE), ($19.37 million) is located at the intersection of energy, environment, and human factors. It is a partnership between the Department of 

Energy (DOE) and the National Science Foundation that will help the Nation 

regain its leadership position in science and engineering by attracting and 

educating future scientists in the clean energy field. By 2015, RE–

ENERGYSE would prepare up to 8,500 highly educated young scientists and 

engineers for clean energy careers and provide training for thousands of 

skilled clean energy technicians.

Support Research for Next-Generation Information and Communications 

Technology, and Secure Cyberspace. While nobody can predict which of today’s 

fundamental discoveries will become tomorrow’s new products and processes, a 

number of NSF programs support the Strategy’s goal to promote innovation. These 

include:

• Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law (SEBML), (50.3 percent 

increase to $70.18 million). In 10 to 20 years, current silicon technology will 

reach the limits of Moore’s Law—the empirical observation that computing 

power doubles roughly every 18 months. SEBML’s transformational activities 

accelerate innovation and create partnering opportunities with the private 

sector and national laboratories.

• Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI), (2.8 percent increase to 

$105.48 million) CDI supports transformative, multidisciplinary science and 

engineering research made possible by innovations and advances in computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms, and tools. CDT breakthroughs 

advance one or more of the three themes: From Data to Knowledge; Understanding Complexity in Natural, Built, and Social Systems; Building Virtual 

Organizations.

• Cybersecurity, (10.6 percent increase to $144.55 million). NSF’s basic research into usability, theoretical foundations, and privacy supports the aims 

of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative.
17

Encourage High-Growth and Innovation-Based Entrepreneurship, and Create Competitive Communities By Promoting Regional Innovation 

Clusters

Partnerships for Innovation (PFI), (108.8 percent increase to $19.19 million). 

PFI brings together colleges, universities, state and local governments, private sector firms, and nonprofit organizations. Initiated in FY 2000, PFI connects new 

knowledge created in the discovery process to learning and innovation, while broadening the participation of people and institutions in NSF activities. PFI activities 

include research, technology transfer, building infrastructure for innovation, and 

workforce education and training. In FY 2011, $12.0 million will be invested in a 

new ‘‘NSF Innovation Ecosystem’’ component, which aims to: increase the engagement of faculty and students across all disciplines in the innovation and entrepreneurship process; increase the impact of the most promising university innovations 

through commercialization, industry alliances, and start-up formulation; and develop a regional community that supports the ‘‘innovation ecosystem’’ around the 

university. It will draw on the individual entrepreneurial spirit of university faculty 

and students, as well as on the proven strengths of established technology centers 

such as Science and Technology Centers, Engineering Research Centers, Industry 

University Cooperative Research Centers, and others that link higher education institutions with investment and industry sectors. The Innovation Ecosystem initiative will focus on ways to maximize the innovation potential of scientific and engineering discovery in the university system and accelerate the technological innovation process with robust partnerships with the private sector. 

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI), (0.4 

percent increase to $18.58 million). GOALI seeks to increase partnerships between 

the academic and industrial communities and provide opportunities to accelerate innovation by strengthening the discovery knowledge base for a quicker translation 

of discovery to societal benefit. The program leverages its budget with support from 

other NSF academic research programs by a factor of four to one. 

Centers programs, (8.9 percent increase to $313.78 million). NSF supports over 

100 centers in seven interdisciplinary program areas. Centers exploit opportunities 

in science, engineering, and technology in which the complexity of the research 

problem or the resources needed to solve the problem require the advantages of 

scope, scale, duration, equipment, facilities, and students. Centers often leverage 

their activities through partnerships with academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities, and via international collaborations, as appropriate.

LEARNING AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

For America to continue to lead the world in science and technology innovation, 

it must have the most knowledgeable and skilled science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) workers in the world. The National Innovation Strategy 

includes programs that support scientists and engineers at the beginning of their 

careers, prepare the next generation of Americans to understand and meet environmental challenges, and educate the next generation with 21st century knowledge 

and skills while creating a world-class workforce. This is not just the smart thing 

to do—it is the right thing to do for our country. By drawing on the spectrum of 

talents and backgrounds of America’s diverse populace, we can bring new approaches to scientific discovery, new vantage points to engineering design, and new 

insights to innovation. This is essential as we increasingly find ourselves in competition with scientist and engineers and entrepreneurs from all corners of the globe, 

and as we strive to remain competitive in the diverse international marketplace.

Administration Priority Programs

The FY 2011 budget maintains strong levels of support for four key Administration priority programs which were strongly supported in the FY 2010 Budget Request. The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) Program and the Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) support the most promising students and 

early-career researchers in order to cultivate the next generation of STEM knowledge workers. Climate Change Education (CCE) targets learning at all levels and 

is designed to develop the next generation of skilled, educated, and climate-savvy 

Americans. Advanced Technological Education (ATE) supports new and enhanced 

two-year college programs that educate technicians for the high-technology workforce.

• The Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program supports the development of the Nation’s future scientists and engineers. As noted earlier, FY 
18

2009 marked the beginning of a growth trajectory to triple the number of new 

awards made each year to 3,000 by FY 2013.

• The Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) develops 

the future scientific and technical workforce through support of young faculty 

who are dedicated to integrating the excitement of research with inspired 

teaching and enthusiastic learning.

• Climate Change Education is designed to develop the next generation of 

skilled, educated, and climate-savvy Americans. It catalyzes activity at the 

national level in four strands of STEM education: preparation of a climate 

science professional workforce; public understanding and engagement; resources for learning; and local and national STEM education policy.

• Advanced Technological Education (ATE) supports new and enhanced 

two-year college programs that educate technicians for the high-technology 

workforce. It is on a growth trajectory begun in FY 2010 to increase the program’s funding to $100 million by FY 2013.

LEARNING AND BROADENING PARTICIPATION

The integration of research and education has been a hallmark of NSF since its 

inception. The Foundation’s investments do double duty—generating new knowledge 

and producing the next generation of scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, and educators. Preparing a STEM workforce ready to lead innovation 

and address national needs requires the involvement of the full range of talent and 

diversity in the Nation, specifically students from traditionally underrepresented 

groups. This is not just the right thing to do—it is the smart thing to do for our 

country. By drawing on the spectrum of talents and backgrounds of America’s diverse populace, we can bring new approaches to scientific discovery, new vantage 

points to engineering design, new insights to innovation. This is essential as we increasing find ourselves in competition with scientist, engineers, and entrepreneurs 

from all corners of the globe, and as we strive to remain competitive in the diverse 

international marketplace. 

The FY 2011 Budget maintains strong support for agency-wide efforts to bring a 

fuller array of perspectives and participants to advancing discovery and innovation. 

Investments across NSF seek to broaden participation among people, institutions, 

and geographical regions. 

Comprehensive Broadening Participation of Undergraduate Institutions 

in STEM (CBP–UI), ($103.10 million). With an FY 2011 investment of $103.10 

million, NSF will implement a new consolidated program, which realigns and builds 

on existing programs: Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduates 

program (HBCU–UP), Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), 

Tribal colleges and universities (TCUP), and Hispanic-serving institutions. This new 

program’s objective is to help build sustainable partnerships and alliances among 

institutions with strong track records in producing underrepresented STEM graduates, thereby building capacity for the STEM field across a range of institutions. 

These comprehensive partnerships will increase the institutions’ competitiveness by:

• strengthening STEM curricular offerings, enhancing STEM faculty development, and increasing competencies and competitiveness of students

• Transforming infrastructure, operations, and resources

• Increasing support for and engagement in frontier scientific research and access to advanced research instrumentation, and maximizing undergraduate 

research opportunities

• Facilitating expanded collaboration between scientists and educators at minority-serving institutions with those at majority institutions

• Stimulating innovation and creativity from the nation’s education and research enterprise through support of effective collaborations between minority-serving and majority institutions, especially research-intensive universities with NSF Science and Technology Centers (STC), Materials Research 

Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC), and Engineering Research Centers (ERC).

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), (4.9 

percent increase to $154.36 million) NSF remains a leader in efforts to broaden participation in science and engineering in all states and regions. EPSCoR’s goal is to 

stimulate sustainable improvements in research participation from institutions in 

geographical areas that are underrepresented in NSF activities. Strategies include 

supporting research infrastructure improvement, co-funding of disciplinary and 
19

interdisciplinary research, and conducting outreach and workshops. This growth 

mirrors the overall growth for the R&RA account for FY 2009 through FY 2011. 

Government-wide Strategy for STEM Education. In addition to its support 

for the programs and priorities already mentioned, NSF is actively engaged as a 

leading participant in the coordinated, government-wide strategy for STEM education. NSF is poised to build on previous and emerging collaborations with the U.S. 

Department of Education, and to use NSF’s unique experience and knowledge base 

in STEM education to identify research and evaluation priorities and to consider appropriate standards of evidence for various stages of research and development cycles. The agencies are embarking jointly on possible collaborations and complementary initiatives to help states improve K–12 student learning in STEM by building 

and sharing knowledge of effective curricular and instructional practices, and how 

they can be implemented at scale.

NSF K–16 Stem Education Priorities

An overarching commitment in all of NSF’s K–16 investments is to address current and emerging educational challenges that have bearing on the preparation of 

a STEM workforce and a STEM-literate society. In particular, NSF K–16 investments are intended to catalyze innovation that improves learning, to validate what 

we think we already know, to scale what works, and to build a knowledge base 

through research and evaluation about how to improve STEM learning for all. These 

investments are made through several core programs that address K–16 education. 

NSF has the following four priorities for K–16 education:

• improving K–16 education through increased research and evaluation to allow 

for more strategic efforts to increase STEM learning, support the creation of 

effective assessment tools and approaches (including tools for measuring 

teacher knowledge) that enable teachers and instructors to examine and improve student learning across the K–16 level; and

• supporting topical areas of national importance, namely climate and energy 

science, into the K–16 educational enterprise;

• preparing the STEM workforce (including teachers) to be the innovators of tomorrow by: improving recruitment, retention, and program completion of undergraduates in two- and four-year institutions; improving undergraduate instruction on the basis of research evidence; and providing scholarships and 

fellowships. A particular focus here is on specific strategies and programs for 

increasing the participation of underrepresented minority students in STEM;

• exploring the potential of cyberlearning to enable new avenues of science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and to create 

new ways of studying the learning process itself.

With the President’s clearly stated emphasis on the importance of improving 

STEM education, NSF will be a willing partner in working with other Federal agencies and departments to more effectively leverage our efforts. This is a great opportunity for us to work together, and to learn from each other in moving toward the 

goal the President has established—American students moving from the middle to 

the top of the pack within a decade.

INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS

A portfolio investment strategy specifically addresses our role in addressing national challenges, such as stimulation of economic growth, promotion of innovative 

energy technologies which can help mitigate the impact of climate change, training 

of a world-class STEM workforce, and nurturing a scientifically literate population. 

A wide range of ongoing NSF investments contribute directly to energy technologies, understanding and mitigating climate change, and promoting green jobs. 

The FY 2011 Request presents a new framework for coordinating and enhancing 

these investments. To leverage NSF’s strengths towards addressing the challenges 

we face, NSF proposes to focus on the full portfolio of activities in two key areas 

of national importance. 

Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES), (16 percent 

increase to $765.5 million) will integrate NSF’s efforts in climate and energy science 

and engineering to generate the discoveries and capabilities needed to inform societal actions that lead to environmental and economic sustainability. SEES addresses 

recommendations from the August 2009 report from the National Science Board, 

Building A Sustainable Energy Future, which emphasized systems approaches to research programs, education and workforce development, public awareness and out-
20

reach, and the importance of partnerships with other agencies, states, universities, 

industry, and international organizations. 

Cyberlearning Transforming Education (CTE), (63 percent increase to $41.3 

million). This new multidisciplinary research program is intended to fully capture 

the transformative potential of advanced learning technologies across the education 

enterprise. CTE will enable wholly new avenues of science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics (STEM) learning for students and for workforce development. Collaborating with the Department of Education to bring advances in technology to 

learners at all educational levels will advance the Nation’s ability to study the 

learning process itself.

INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES

Networking and Information Technology Research and Development 

(NITRD), (7 percent increase to $1.170 billion). NITRD coordinates the unclassified 

networking and information technology research and development investments 

across thirteen Federal agencies. These agencies work together to develop a broad 

spectrum of advanced networking and IT capabilities to power Federal missions, 

economic competitiveness, and science, engineering, and technology leadership. NSF 

is a leader in the program and NITRD activities represent 16 percent of NSF’s 

FY 2011 budget. Funding foci for FY 2011 include large scale networking, 

cybersecurity and information assurance, high confidence software and systems, 

human-computer interaction and information management, and software design and 

productivity. 

National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), (four percent decrease to $401.3 

million). NSF actively participates in the NNI, which coordinates nanotechnology research and development with 25 departments and agencies across the Federal Government. Nanotechnology encompasses the systematic understanding, organization, 

manipulation, and control of matter at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular 

levels in the size range of 1 to 100 nanometers. NSF’s investment in this activity 

increases in two key areas in FY 2011: nanomanufacturing (44 percent increase to 

$32.2 million) and Environmental, Health and Safety (11 percent increase to $33.0 

million). 

NSF contributes to the three NNI Signature Initiatives focusing on:

• Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond (in partnership with DOD, NIST, DOE, 

DNI);

• Sustainable Nanomanufacturing (in partnership with NIST, DOE, EPA, 

NIH); and

• Nanotechnology Applications for Solar Energy (in partnership with DOE, 

NIST, DOD, DNI, USDAINIFA).

Additionally, NSF will further emphasize (beyond current support) the environmental, health and safety implications of nanotechnology, including development of 

predictive toxicity of nanomaterials, primarily through the support of three dedicated multidisciplinary centers and through support for approximately 60 additional 

research groups. 

The budget request includes, for example, further support for advanced manufacturing with an emphasis on nanomanufacturing, support for Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law (an integral aspect of nanoelectronics for 2020 and beyond), 

and support for new and innovative means for addressing energy challenges (such 

as solar energy) through the SEES initiative.

STEWARDSHIP INVESTMENTS

Since 2001, the number of proposals submitted to NSF has increased by over 50 

percent. In that time, staffing has increased by only 19 percent. To support NSF’s 

excellence in science and engineering research and education, NSF must invest in 

expanding and developing its workforce and resources to maintain a capable and responsive organization. 

The FY 2011 Request includes $468.8 million (+$39.I million) for activities aimed 

at assuring that NSF will be able to effectively and efficiently manage its operations. Funds will support:

• Staff, 40 additional full-time equivalents (for a total of 1,350 FTE) and eleven 

additional IPAs are requested;

• IT investments, such as the expansion of Research.gov, modernization of the 

NSF financial system, and improvements in the reliability and security of 

NSF’s operational IT systems; and
21

• Acquisition, ($2.0 million). This increase is part of the government-wide effort to strengthen the acquisition workforce. A key priority for NSF is improving capabilities in the pre-solicitation phase of major acquisitions.

A specific emphasis in FY 2011 is promoting strong, independent evaluation that 

can inform policy decisions, program management, and performance assessment 

across NSF. NSF participates in the Administration’s government-wide initiative to 

strengthen program evaluation and performance measurement, and shares its commitment to post the status and findings of this and other important publicly available evaluations online.

• High-Priority Performance Goal: NSF’s goal for the end of FY 2011 is to 

develop evaluation and assessment systems for STEM education and workforce programs that can provide findings leading to program re-design or consolidation.

• Foundation-wide planning, analysis, and evaluation. $1.0 million will 

support additional staff and associated resources for the establishment of a 

centralized NSF capability for assessment and evaluation. This would bring 

greater attention and analysis to such areas as comparing different types of 

programmatic investments and identifying the most effective means for continuous improvement across the NSF portfolio.

Concluding Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of our mission is to constantly re-think old categories and traditional perspectives. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

data and information, or encouraging new collaborations and partnerships across 

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

flexibility in STEM education and basic research. 

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

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

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

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

Industry continues to rely upon government support for high-risk, high-reward 

basic research. It is no accident that our country’s most productive and competitive 

industries are those that benefited the most from sustained Federal investments in 

R&D—including computers and communications, semiconductors, biotechnology, 

and aerospace. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of our high-tech economy, we can solidify America’s role as the world leader in innovation. 
22

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

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

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

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

may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., was sworn in as the 12th Director of the National Science 

Foundation (NSF) on November 24, 2004. He had served as Acting Director since 

February 22, 2004. 

Dr. Bement heads the only Federal agency that funds research and education in 

all fields of science and engineering. He directs a budget of more than $6 billion; 

hundreds of programs that support roughly 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators, 

and students across the country; and the development of world-class facilities and 

infrastructure. He oversees a robust international research program in the polar regions and several international partnerships to build sophisticated research and experimental facilities. 

Since the White House launch of the American Competitiveness Initiative in 2006, 

he has overseen numerous initiatives that strengthen the U.S. innovation base and 

economic position and intensify the training of the U.S. workforce to operate in a 

high-tech global economy. His top priorities have included increasing the size and 

duration of NSF funding awards; implementing electronic proposal and grant processing at NSF; developing cyberinfrastructure that advances research and education 

through expanded capabilities for networking, data processing and storage, modeling, and simulation; and broadening international collaborations to leverage NSF 

investments. He has expanded NSF’s centers of excellence program to encompass 

dozens of science and engineering disciplines partnering with industries and educators. 

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

vice-chair of the Commission’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Committee. He is 

a member of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, a fellow of the American 

Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Dr. Bement is an ex officio member of the U.S. National Science Board, which 

guides NSF activities and serves as a policy advisory body to the President and Congress. He was a member of the NSB from 1989 to 1995. 

Prior to his confirmation as NSF director in November 2004, Dr. Bement served 

as director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the Department 

of Commerce, a position he had held since Dec. 7, 2001. At NIST he oversaw an 

annual budget of about $773 million and an on-site research and administrative 

staff of 3,000 employees, complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally managed manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers across the United States. 

He joined NIST from Purdue University, where he was the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear 
23

Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as 

well as a courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management of the Electrical Power Grid. 

Dr. Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, 

government and academia. His positions included: vice president of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980–92); deputy under secretary of defense for research and engineering (1979–80); director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976–79); professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970–76); 

manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965–70); and senior research associate, 

General Electric Co. (1954–65). He has also been a director of Keithley Instruments 

Inc. and the Lord Corp. and a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp., a division of ALCOA. 

He has earned numerous awards and served in diverse government advisory roles, 

including: head of the NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology; head of 

the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced Technology Program; member of the 

Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award; chair of the 

Commission for Engineering and Technical Studies and the National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council; and member of the Space Station 

Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization and Technology Advisory Committee for NASA. He has consulted for the Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory. 

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

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

a doctorate in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, and honorary doctorates from Cleveland State University, Case Western Reserve University, 

and the Colorado School of Mines, as well as a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary Professorship. He is a retired Lieutenant Colonel of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, and a recipient of the Distinguished Service Medal of the 

Department of Defense.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Bement. Actually I was sitting here and looking at the two of you and then to my right and 

my left, and I noticed no one is going to be around. I was getting 

a little concerned, and Ms. Fudge came in and I felt a little bit better. Hopefully I will be here come next January. I am planning on 

it. 

Dr. Beering, I recognize you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. BEERING. Thank you, Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member 

Ehlers and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I am Steven Beering, Chairman of the National 

Science Board and President Emeritus of Purdue University. I am 

particularly pleased to be here with my valued colleague, Dr. Arden 

Bement, and I am honored to represent the members of the National Science Board before you today. 

Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and 

gave it dual responsibilities, first, to establish and oversee the policies for the National Science Foundation, and second, to serve as 

an advisory body to the President and Congress on national policy 

issues related to science, engineering research and education. We 

applaud your continuing support for NSF and your commitment to 

sustaining U.S. leadership in science and technology. 

The United States has long been a leading center of science technology and innovation but we now face challenges to our leadership 

as a result of growing capacity in science and technology across the 

globe. Recent data in our biannual statistic report, Science and En-
24

gineering Indicators 2010, convey an important story. Many countries and economies have taken steps to open their markets to 

trade and foreign investment, develop their S&T [Science and 

Technology] infrastructures, stimulate industrial R&D, expand 

their higher education systems and build indigenous R&D capabilities. In short, they are developing strategic plans and policy framework for increasing science and technology capacity and they are 

investing in the infrastructure and workforce necessary to achieve 

their objectives. In particular, we are seeing that China and other 

Asian countries may pose an ever-greater future challenge to U.S. 

preeminence in terms of overall R&D investment and students and 

researchers involved in S&T activities. While the number of degrees granted does not provide information on the quality of the 

students obtaining them, in 2006 China awarded nearly as many 

doctoral degrees as the United States and may have since surpassed the United States. 

Increased global R&D activity should by no means be viewed as 

negative, however. It leads to a dynamic global system of exchange 

of scientific knowledge and collaboration among the various researchers and provides opportunities to build shared international 

programs. However, this also means that the United States must 

continue to support robust investments in science and technology. 

This year’s budget request for science and technology agencies 

acknowledges the critical nature of S&T to America’s long-term 

economic growth. Federal support for research and education 

across S&E [Science and Engineering] fields is of special importance in tight economic times when private firms are hesitant to 

invest in R&D projects whose economic benefits may not be immediate. The President’s NSF [National Science Foundation] budget 

request of $7.4 billion reflects a clear understanding that investments in S&T are not luxuries. Rather, they are critical investments to fund the research and innovation that will build our future. 

Funding for NSF’s Agency Operations and Award Management, 

the so-called AOAM account, continues to be a top priority for our 

Board. This account represents the majority of the funding devoted 

to agency operations. In fiscal year 2010, the President’s request 

for an AOAM increase of 8.3 percent was reduced to only two percent. Robust human and physical infrastructure and management 

are critical to support NSF’s gold standard merit review process. 

The Board urges your full support for this year’s request for the 

AOAM account. 

The Board has recently identified priorities over the next 12 to 

24 months. They are grantee data policies at NSF, mid-scale research efforts, and revisiting the NSF merit review criteria. Each 

of these studies will examine issues of high importance to NSF, 

and the Board intends to provide its substantive guidance at the 

conclusion of each study. Brief summaries of these topics are provided in my written testimony. 

In conclusion, the Board urges that the Congress fund in full the 

President’s budget request for the National Science Foundation. As 

our Nation recovers from economic recession, investment in S&E 

research and education are ever more critical to laying the longterm foundation for S&T-based innovation that drives the creation 
25

1 National Science Board (NSB). 20I0. Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (NSB–10–01), 

p. 6–7.

of new jobs and industries. The economic growth and the quality 

of life that we enjoyed in the 20th century were made possible in 

large part by scientific discoveries and technologic innovations. 

Continued economic prosperity and improvements in the American 

quality of life will require continued and indeed enhanced Federal 

commitment to investing in S&E research and education. 

Mr. Chairman, after nearly eight years on the Board and serving 

for the last four years as Chairman, my term is about to end in 

May. On behalf of the National Science Board and the S&E research and education communities, I want to thank you, the Members of the Subcommittee, for your long-term support for the National Science Foundation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beering follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. BEERING

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I am Steven Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board and President Emeritus of Purdue University.

National Science Board

I am honored to represent the members of the National Science Board before you 

today. Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and gave it dual 

responsibilities:

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

Foundation (NSF)

 ̨ Serve as an advisory body to the President and Congress on national policy 

issues related to science and engineering (S&E) research and education.

The National Science Foundation is the primary source of funding for academic 

basic research across non-biomedical science and engineering disciplines. NSF funds 

cutting-edge research at the frontiers of knowledge, and also supports scientific facilities and activities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) education. We applaud your continuing support for NSF and your commitment to sustaining U.S. leadership in science and technology.

Concerns for American Science Leadership from Science and Engineering 

Indicators 2010

The United States has long been a leading center of science, technology, and innovation, but we now face challenges as a result of growing capacity in science and 

technology (S&T) across the globe. Economists increasingly emphasize the central 

role of knowledge, particularly R&D and other activities to promote science and 

technology, in a country’s economic success.1 But as recent indicators show us, in 

our biennial statistical report, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 (SEI 2010), 

many countries and economies have taken steps to open their markets to trade and 

foreign investment, develop or recast their S&T infrastructures, stimulate industrial 

research and development (R&D), expand their higher education systems, and build 

indigenous R&D capabilities. In short, they are developing strategic plans and policy 

frameworks for increasing S&T capacity, and investing in the requisite infrastructure and workforce to achieve their objectives. And while the EU and Japan continue to be major players in S&T, China and other developing nations are rapidly 

building S&T capacity. 
26

2 NSB. p. 2–35.

While the United States continues to be by far the largest R&D-performing country in terms of absolute dollar investment, China and other Asian nations are rapidly increasing their R&D investments. Between 1996 and 2007, China increased its 

R&D expenditures at a 20 percent annual growth rate from a substantially lower 

base, while the United States and other mature S&T countries averaged about a 

5 to six percent annual growth rate from a higher base. As a result, relative regional 

investments in R&D changed markedly: the North American region’s (United 

States, Canada, and Mexico) share of estimated world R&D activity decreased from 

40 to 35 percent; the European Union’s share decreased from 31 to 28 percent. 

These declines in global R&D share reflect the Asia/Pacific region’s increase from 

24 to 31 percent, with most of that increase contributed by countries other than 

Japan. 

China and other Asian countries also pose a challenge to U.S. preeminence in 

terms of students and researchers involved in S&T activities. On both indicators, 

China’s absolute numbers have increased in recent years. As SEI 2010 points out, 

the number of S&E doctorates awarded in China rose from about 1,900 in 1993 to 

almost 23,000 in 2006, more than a 12-fold increase. While the number of degrees 

granted does not provide information on the quality of the students, in 2006 China 

awarded nearly as many doctoral degrees as the United States, and may have since 

surpassed the United States.2
27

3 NSB, p. 5–5. 

Between 1995 and 2007, the number of researchers in China more than doubled 

from about 0.5 million to more than 1.4 million, an increase in world percentage 

from 13 to 25 percent. In comparison, the number of researchers in the United 

States and the EU grew by an annual rate of about three percent over the same 

time period. China’s publication volume increased by about 14 percent annually over 

the period 1995 to 2008, moving it into 2nd place behind the United States, up from 

14th place in 1995.3

Increased global R&D activity should by no means be viewed as negative. It leads 

to a dynamic global system of exchange of scientific knowledge and collaboration 

among diverse researchers, and provides opportunities to build shared international 

facilities. However, the United States must view increased global capacity in S&T 

as a call to sustained action to continue robust investments in science and technology.

FY 2011 Budget Request

This year’s budget request for science and technology agencies acknowledges the 

critical nature of science and technology to America’s long-term economic growth. 

Federal support for research and education across science and engineering fields is 

of special importance in tight economic times, when private firms are hesitant to 

invest in R&D projects whose economic benefits may not be immediate. Funding the 

National Science Foundation at the FY 2011 budget request level is essential to our 

nation’s continued prowess in S&T-based innovation, economic prosperity, and high 

quality of life. The President’s NSF budget request of $7.4 billion reflects the clear understanding that investments in science and technology are not luxuries but rather critical investments to fund the research and innovation that will build America’s future. If approved, this 6.9 percent increase in real terms, 8.0 percent in current dollars, above the 2010 funding level, would put NSF on track to double its budget in 

ten years, as part of the President’s Plan for Science and Innovation and roughly 

consistent with the America COMPETES Act. The request for the National Science Board is $4.84 million, an increase of $300,000, or 6.6 percent, over the FY 2010 budget of $4.54 million., This increase 

will allow the Board to continue to strengthen its role in policy for NSF and in advising the President and Congress on significant national policy issues in science 

and engineering and education in science and engineering. 

Funding for NSF’s Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM) account 

continues to be a top priority for the Board. This account represents the majority 

of the funding devoted to agency operations. In FY 2010, the President’s budget request for NSF for an ADAM increase of 8.3% was reduced to only 2%. For NSF to 

continue to serve our nation, we must have adequate human and physical infrastructure and management. The quality of the merit review process greatly depends 

upon NSF having staff with the necessary expertise, within and across disciplines, 

to select and recruit superior reviewers and panelists. To sustain excellence in merit 

review, the Board urges full support of the request for the ADAM account. 

Now, I wish to address several topics raised by Chairman Lipinski.

National Science Board Priorities

The Board has recently identified priority areas to explore over the next 12 to 24 

months: grantee data policies at NSF, multi-investigator and multi-scale research 

efforts supported by NSF, and revisiting the NSF merit review criteria. Each of 

these studies will examine issues of high importance to NSF, and the Board intends 

to provide substantive guidance to the agency at the conclusion of each study. Below 

are brief summaries of the topics.

1. Data Policies

Increasing ease of gathering massive amounts of data and of use of large-scale 

collaborative projects has made it a priority to consider NSF data policies. The 

Board will examine how NSF data policies govern how data collected in NSF-supported projects should be managed and shared, to ensure broad, timely, and longterm data availability and accessibility. The Board’s study will build upon its 2005 

report, Long-Lived Digital Data Collections: Enabling Research and Education in 

the 21st Century (NSB–05–40). Although the initial focus of the study will be NSF’s 

data policies, the Board hopes to use this study to engender a discussion of the topic 

in a broader Federal context. 
28

Several policy questions will be considered, including:

 ̨ How can NSF most effectively develop cyberinfrastructure that supports the 

data acquisition, accessibility, manipulation, and storage needs of the broad 

scientific community, particularly at NSF funded large facilities and distributed networks that generate extremely large amounts of raw data?

 ̨ Is there a way to capitalize on cyberinfrastructure investments made and lessons learned among multiple NSF facilities facing similar data issues?

 ̨ What role, if any, should NSF play in managing and ensuring the long-term 

availability and accessibility of data—particularly digital data?

 ̨ How should data collected with NSF funding be managed and shared to ensure openness?

2. Multi-Investigator and Mid-Scale Research

NSF utilizes a variety of mechanisms to facilitate research at the frontiers of 

knowledge (e.g. cooperative agreements, centers, programs linking industry and academia, and MREFC projects). In light of the ever-increasing size and complexity of 

research projects, the Board plans to examine the adequacy of its support frameworks for mid-scale, multi-investigator research. Research projects that cost approximately $10 to $100 million (larger than average awards, but smaller than 

MREFC projects), and are conducted by multiple investigators and sometimes encompass multiple disciplines, are the subject of this study. 

In broad terms, the Board plans to examine NSF’s current efforts in supporting 

mid-scale research activities, and explore the best means for doing so in the future.

3. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated with respect to two equally important merit review criteria—intellectual merit and broader impacts. These merit review criteria 

were established in 1997 to replace a four-criteria system, in which reviewers evaluated researcher performance competence, intrinsic merit of the research, utility or 

relevance of the research, and effect on the infrastructure of science and engineering. 

The Board last reviewed the NSF merit review in the mid-2000s, at the request 

of Congress. The Board issued a report in September 2005, concluding that the NSF 

merit review process is fair and effective, and ‘‘remains an international ‘gold standard’ for review of science and engineering research proposals.’’

The Board intends to reevaluate the two current merit review criteria and decide 

whether to retain the current criteria or to consider some degree of enhancement. 

As part of this reevaluation, the Board intends to examine, among other issues, 

whether enhancements could be made to clarify the meaning and appropriate responses concerning ‘‘transformative research’’ for the first criterion, and ‘‘broadening 

participation’’ for the second criterion.

NSF Investment in Research Infrastructure

In addition to its examination of NSF multi-investigator and mid-scale research, 

the Board has created a new subcommittee to focus on facilities. Recognizing the 

need to address the issue of strategic facility planning across NSF, the Board last 

year established the Subcommittee on Facilities (SCF) under its Committee on 

Strategy and Budget (CSB), with responsibility for providing guidance on strategic 

planning for the entire NSF research equipment and facilities portfolio. SCF activities include undertaking an annual review of the portfolio of all NSF-funded research facilities (including facilities funded under Research and Related Activities 

account). This annual review will allow SCF to provide to CSB and the Board a 

clear assessment of the impact that specific projects and the overall facilities portfolio will have on long-term budget planning at NSF, and recommend to CSB and 

the Board guidance to be provided to NSF management on the prioritization of all 

projects that have completed a Conceptual Design Review (CDR) and are being considered for further funding to develop Preliminary Designs. This committee is established under the auspices of CSB to allow for full discussion of NSF’s research infrastructure investments relative to the agency’s other types of research investments. 

Its intent is to maintain Board focus on all phases of facilities—design, development, construction, operations, and decommissioning. 

The MREFC account supports the acquisition, construction, and commissioning of 

major research facilities to provide unique capabilities at the forefront of science and 

engineering research. There are several distinct phases in the NSF process for conceptualizing, planning, and constructing MREFCs: conceptual design stage, prelimi-
29

nary design (Readiness) stage, and final design stage. The Board is involved in the 

process at two key critical design points—following preliminary design review (PDR) 

and final design review. The Board is exploring with NSF how the Board may best 

be involved in selecting projects that advance towards the Readiness stage. 

During the Readiness stage, a Preliminary Design is developed and vetted 

through a formal PDR by the MREFC panel (composed of all NSF Assistant Directors, Office Heads, and the Deputy Director) and outside experts. The Preliminary 

Design is generally used as the baseline project definition when requesting Congressional appropriation of construction funds. If the PDR judges the preliminary design 

to be of high scientific merit and construction readiness, the MREFC panel recommends to the Director that the Board consider advancing the project to the Proposed New Starts category of facilities for inclusion in a future President’s budget 

request. The Board votes up-down to advance the project to the Final Design Stage. 

During the Final Design Stage, the project continues its pre-construction planning, and NSF conducts annual cost review updates, with results reported to the 

Board. A Final Design Review (FDR) is conducted to ensure that the project is 

aligned with the appropriated budget, if such budget is successfully attained 

through the Congressional appropriation process. The FDR also considers whether 

the underlying assumptions about the project continue to be valid, and whether the 

project is fully ready to undertake construction activity. Following the FDR, the 

Board is asked to approve the obligation of MREFC funds (if Congress has appropriated funding for the project) to begin construction. 

Facility operating costs are considered in the context of deciding whether to undertake construction of a new facility under the MREFC account. Projects are repeatedly assessed throughout the planning and construction period to ensure accurate awareness of projected operating costs. Beginning with the NSF FY 2009 budget request, the NSF Director instituted a no cost overrun policy requiring that the 

project cost estimate at PDR include adequate contingency to cover all foreseeable 

risks, and that any cost increases not covered by contingency be accommodated by 

scope reduction. Since implementing the policy for new facilities, NSF has been successful at staying within cost and schedule plans.

Reauthorization of America COMPETES Act

The Board has several operational issues related to staffing, ensuring timely information for S&E Indicators, and in defining a quorum for gatherings outside of 

plenary sessions. Ongoing discussions with Subcommittee staff should help resolve 

these important issues.

Closing Remarks

The Board urges that Congress fund in full the President’s budget request for the 

National Science Foundation. As our nation recovers from economic recession, investments in science and engineering research and education are ever more critical 

to laying the long-term foundation for S&T-based innovation that drives the creation 

of new jobs and industries. The economic growth and the quality of life that we enjoyed in the 20th century were made possible in large part by scientific discoveries 

and technological innovations. Continued economic prosperity and improvements in 

the American quality of life will require a continued, and indeed enhanced, Federal 

commitment to investing in science and engineering research and education. 

Mr. Chairman, after seven years on the Board and serving for the last four years 

as Chairman, my term is about to end in May. On behalf of the National Science 

Board and the S&E research and education communities, I would like to thank the 

Members of the Subcommittee for your long-term recognition of and commitment to 

support for the National Science foundation.
30

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN C. BEERING

Steven C. Beering received B.S. and M.D. degrees and an honorary Doctor of 

Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Before becoming President of Purdue in 1983, he served for a decade as Dean of Medicine and Director of the Indiana 

University Medical Center. He holds appointments as professor of medicine at Indiana University and professor of pharmacology at Purdue University. He retired from 

the Purdue presidency in 2000. 

He served on active duty with the USAF Medical Corps from May 1957 to June 

1969, achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel. 

Beering has held numerous national offices, including the chairmanship of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the National Library of Medicine. 

He is also a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the Royal Society 

of Medicine, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Institute of Medicine of the National 

Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy. 

He serves on a number of national and corporate boards, including NiSource Inc., 

Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, Inc., Community Foundation of Northern 

Indiana, and Marquis Who’s Who. He is a Trustee of the University of Pittsburgh, 

and the Universities Research Association, and is Director Emeritus of the Purdue 

Research Foundation. 

Beering was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002, reappointed in 

2004, and elected Chairman in 2006.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Beering, and at this point we 

are going to begin our first round of questions, and the Chair will 

begin by recognizing Dr. Baird. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo the sentiments of the Chairman in thanking both of these distinguished 

public servants for their many years of service in their prior positions and their extensive contributions to science. We are grateful, 

and you have made a real difference, and personally speaking, it 

has been a real privilege to get to know you and to work with you, 

and for that matter, with the entire board and the staff of NSF. 

One of the difficult things, I am sure, for Dr. Ehlers and me as we 

contemplate our own departure from this institution, is leaving this 

committee that we are so passionate about, and we will look forward to working with you in some capacity in the future. 

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BAIRD. I will make a commercial announcement to my colleagues. Last night I had the privilege of going to the 3D Hubble 

film, the world premiere of this at the Air and Space Museum, and 

if you have not seen this, because it just premiered last night, 
31

make it a point to do this. If you want to feel great about American 

science and technology and engineering and just can-do spirit, that 

film is a must-see. And I commend both of you and the Administration for recognizing through this budget the importance of funding 

our scientific endeavors adequately. 

I want to ask a little bit about your thoughts on—as you know, 

I was very active and continue to be so on the issue of global 

science, and talk to us a little bit about how you see this budget 

and various programs within it fitting into efforts for science diplomacy. Dr. Beering, you mentioned a little bit about the importance 

of international exchange of ideas. Share with us how this budget 

and your plans for the future for the agency reflect science diplomacy issues. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Baird. The intention in bringing the Office of International Science and Engineering up to the 

Director’s office was to make it more strategic in position for budget growth. I am proud to say that over the six years I have been 

in the Foundation, the budget has grown quite substantially compared with the average growth of the agency as a whole. We have 

introduced new programs. The PIRE program, which goes beyond 

the investigator-to-investigator collaboration to institution-to-institution collaboration, that has been a huge success. Our success rate 

is still too low so we need to bring up the funding over time. Nevertheless, the transformative research that is being done under these 

international collaborations is critically important, and it keeps us 

abreast of not only where scientists abroad see the frontier, but 

also in developing new synergies to do not only interdisciplinary research but also research that can really make a major difference. 

The other initiative that—a couple other initiatives. One is, we 

have developed a relationship with USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development]. As you know, we are a domestic agency so 

we don’t fund research projects abroad, but in the developing 

world, there is a need to provide some assistance so that their research can match our research as we fund our part of the research 

initiative. We are working closely with USAID. We have found 

some projects that fit their interest that will allow us to move forward. We hope that the numbers will continue to increase over 

time. In the President’s Muslim Majority Initiative, we have allocated $2.5 million to provide support for summer institutes, for exchanges of post-docs, graduate students and so forth in order to improve the engagement in those countries around the world. 

So those are some new steps that we are taking, and as I look 

forward to the future, I see that NSF’s leadership and international 

engagement will only increase. 

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Beering, did you wish to comment on that at all? 

Dr. BEERING. Some while ago, I had a chance to be in Europe 

and attend an anniversary celebration of the European Union, and 

the Secretary General wanted to reassure me that he was not interested in our dollars, but what he was interested in, they were 

all sharing in that sentiment as I discovered over the ensuing days, 

was a partnership of ideas and a partnership of effort, and I believe 

they are quite sincere in that and I believe that our new project 

emphasis is going to help that. 

Mr. BAIRD. Dr. Bement, thank you. Did you want to——
32

Dr. BEMENT. I can add a footnote. We have also sought cooperation and partnerships with private funding agencies—not agencies 

but organizations like the Gates organization, and we have together with the Gates Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation, established a new initiative called the BREAD initiative [Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development], which is 

basic research in agriculture in the developing world, primarily to 

focus on small holder agriculture to make it economically viable in 

those parts of the world. This is the kind of relationship, similar 

to USAID, where the National Science Foundation will pay for the 

U.S. scientists and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will pay 

for the in-country scientists to enable the collaborative work to proceed. 

Mr. BAIRD. That is a great partnership. Thank you very much. 

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The Chair will now recognize Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join in expressing 

my appreciation to both of you for your long and good service for 

the Federal Government, and I never realized before how making 

boilermakers could develop such wide-ranging skills. 

Dr. BEMENT. It is more of a drink than a skill. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I wouldn’t know anything about that. My only 

vice is tea. 

Just following up on the comments made by Dr. Baird, a quick 

question. When I came here a long time ago, I was surprised at the 

lack of scientific interest in the Department of State and the lack 

of scientific aides there, and managed to correct that through the 

Unlocking the Future Report so we have had some good people 

there since. On the international issues and the diplomatic part, do 

you think that the Department of State at this point is fulfilling 

what should be done, or should they increase their staff or their 

funding for their effort to take your ideas, the NSF ideas and make 

things run more smoothly? 

Dr. BEMENT. First of all, I think that State has done a very good 

job in trying to become better connected with the scientific community at large, and also to employ scientists in their programs in 

science diplomacy. The first step was establishing a Science Advisor to the Secretary. That has been a very powerful position, not 

only in developing a network to the scientific community, but also 

in establishing programs like the Jefferson Fellows that bring top 

talent from U.S. universities to work in the State Department in 

very important roles all around the world. Those scholars are very 

well regarded and they do very important work, and we see some 

of that work through our own offices in Beijing, Tokyo and Paris, 

and we have been able to establish a relationship to that network. 

I think it is also represented in the quality of some of the people 

they are bringing in to key posts, some political positions that have 

scientific backgrounds. So I think over time it is going to be an increasing recognition of the importance of science diplomacy, not 

science directed by diplomacy but diplomacy opportunities resulting 

from science. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I am glad to hear that optimistic report. 

Getting back to the point I made during my opening comments about the Administration’s $3.7 billion dollar historic commitment, 
33

as the President labeled it, in K–12 STEM education, I certainly 

welcome this effort but my concern is, what role will NSF be playing in this? Were you contacted? Were you in discussions with the 

Office of Management and Budget on this and on the allocation? 

What have you done up to this point and what has Secretary Duncan done up to this point to develop a good working relationship 

to try to make sure that we have two departments—I am sorry, an 

agency and a department working in complete concert to achieve 

their goals? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I would like to say to start with that I think 

we have gotten rid of all the old tapes. I just hope that that will 

be better recognized. Having top officials from the Chicago School 

District that has so well represented NSF programs in their transformation gives us an opportunity to talk real terms about the role 

of research and the NSF program as we seek continued partnership 

with the Department of Education so that Secretary Duncan, Administrator Easton and others are very close partners with the 

NSF at the present time and we are seeking new ways to collaborate. We have new programs, for example, IES, the Institute of 

Education Sciences, and are carrying out joint assessments of 

teacher proficiency, and teacher proficiency in math, and also 

teacher proficiency in STEM across the board including science. 

There are other initiatives that we are thinking about doing jointly 

including continuing the close working relationship we have had 

with the MSP [Math and Science Partnership] program, or in the 

case of education, Department of Education, their new program 

based on the Math and Science Partnership program. 

There are three priorities that the Administration has delineated 

for the National Science Foundation. One is to prepare the STEM 

workforce, which is very broad. That includes broadening participation. The second is increasing the number of graduate fellows to 

triple the number of new fellowships by 2013. And the third is to 

expand evaluation activities to build capacity tools and methods. So 

in the 2011 budget, the two programs that we especially wanted to 

pay attention to are the ones that are research-intensive, namely 

the Math and Science Partnership program and also the Discovery 

Research K–12 program. Now, you will recognize that in the Recovery Act bill, there was $85 million that was allocated for the Noyce 

program and the Math and Science Partnership program. If you 

take into account that the base for K–12 investment though the 

Foundation which includes both the EHR component and the 

R&RA component, I think conservatively would be about $250 million across the board. Even though we only report about $57 million, it is considerably greater. If you take the $85 million invested 

through the Recovery Act, most of which are in—all of which are 

in standard grants and will spend out over the next three to five 

years, against that $250 million base, that represents a 35 percent 

increase. If you take the average of four years, that would represent about an 8.5 percent increase per year in K–12 education 

across the board. We felt it was prudent, recognizing that we also 

have to plan for renewals, that in 2011 we would have to hold back 

a little bit or pause a little bit, and then prepare to grow in the 

outyears. So we feel that K–12 education is robust. We are putting 

much more focus on research. That will be through program re-
34

alignment. It will also be through staffing. We feel that that is not 

only the long suit of the National Science Foundation but the most 

important role that we can play in trying to upgrade K–12 education both in math and in science. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, I hope our successors can continue that string. 

I just want to make sure that the money is allocated fairly, in this 

case $1 billion for STEM education. I want to make sure it is allocated properly between the NSF and the Department of Education. 

Dr. BEMENT. I appreciate that very much. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. Yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Fudge. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank both of you for your service and thank you for being here 

today. I have really two questions. 

The first one, Dr. Bement, how do you reconcile the Administration’s commitment to improving STEM education when the majority of programs in the Education and Human Resources directorate 

will be flat funded or even decreased and the directorate overall 

will receive only a 2.2 percent increase in fiscal year 2011? Of particular interest to this committee, which you have just briefly 

touched on, the Noyce teacher scholarship program and the Math 

and Science Partnerships program that we expanded in the 2007 

COMPETES Act. Both of these programs have demonstrated success. Shouldn’t we be pouring as much money as we can into sure 

bets such as these two programs? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, again, I refer back to the impact that the Recovery Act has had on that program, both the Noyce and the Math 

and Science Partnership program. There was an enrichment or an 

infusion of significant funding to really increase the number of 

awards in those two programs, and we will continue to use that as 

the flagship to grow those programs as the NSF budget continues 

to increase. So I think we are very well positioned in both Math 

and Science Partnership and the Noyce program looking out over 

the next two or three years. We have got any number of awards 

already in place as a result of the Recovery Act that will boost the 

outcomes from those investments. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay, but we know the Recovery Act is only going 

to last so long, so——

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I say, we made standard grants that will 

spend out over three to five years, so it is not just a short-term investment, it is a long-term investment. So as we continue to grow 

our budget overall, we will continue to boost those programs, but 

for one or two years we are sort of holding back a little bit so that 

we can meet the renewal commitments and obligations of the 

awards we have already made. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. My next question: the Department of 

Education’s Office of Educational Technology recently released the 

report ‘‘Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by 

Technology.’’ In the report released on Friday, the National Educational Technology Plan Working Group draws guidance from a 

2008 report from NSF’s Task Force on Cyberlearning and makes 

several policy recommendations for the Department of Education, 

some of which include collaboration with the National Science 
35

Foundation. I see that NSF is proposing to establish the 

Cyberlearning Transforming Education [CTE] program, funded at 

$41 million. How do you see this program cooperating with and 

supporting efforts at the Department of Education and who will be 

responsible for the assessments and/or evaluation of these programs? 

Dr. BEMENT. First of all, Cyberlearning Transforming Education 

is highly responsive to the report you made reference to and it is 

an exciting area that we feel has a lot of opportunity in upgrading 

education. But it is a multi-level investment. It is not just K–12, 

it is also undergraduate education, graduate education and even 

post-doc education. With regard to K–12 and undergraduate education, we have already a close working relationship with the Department of Education, and as I indicated, through the Institute of 

Education Sciences, we have joint initiatives underway to do assessments of teacher proficiency both in math and science, and included in that, when the CTE program comes into effect, will be 

the evaluation of the effectiveness of that education as well. One 

thing that we feel has to be paid attention to is not just the research but the scaling of the outcomes of the research. In other 

words, how do you build a brushfire? How do you take the results 

from a few districts and extend them throughout the country? We 

can only do the scaling and the transferring of those best practices 

through close cooperation with the Department of Education and 

states, because of the 15,000 school districts in the country, we can 

touch about 250. And we can develop the best practices and do the 

research but we have to reach the other 15,000 school districts, and 

that is where partnerships with both the Department of Education 

and the state departments of education are vitally important. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Inglis. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Dr. Bement, thank 

you for your work at NSF. We are grateful for the years of service 

you have had there, and I understand this is perhaps your last 

hearing with us so we are——

Dr. BEMENT. I fear that may be the case. I don’t hope that that 

is the case. 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, we very much appreciate your work, and perhaps on the way out you can give us some advice. You know, at 

NSF, it is scientific endeavors that you are all about there, ongoing 

and constant. In politics, things come and go, you know, and we 

were all jazzed up about gas at $4 a gallon. Now you can’t find a 

story about gas at $4 a gallon. But I think it is pretty clear that 

as soon as the recovery takes off, given the inelastic supply curve, 

we are going to jump on the price again as the demand rises and 

we will be squawking once again about energy prices. 

Do you have any suggestions for us about how to maintain a 

steady and persistent drive to energy independence and how it 

would be that we should be funding scientific endeavors in that 

way? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I would like to comment on your point, and 

that is, the reality that we have to cope with in society is variability around the mean, and it is a question of what the periodicity 
36

is of that variability, whether it is in terms of a couple years or 

whether it is a decade or whether it is longer than a decade, and 

energy, carbon-based fuel availability, whether it is natural gas, 

oil, depends on the finding rate as well as the consumption rate 

and there will be variability around the mean. Same thing in climate change. We had a cold winter so everyone feels that climate 

change has gone away. Well, they don’t remember that about four 

years ago in Europe they had a heat spell that killed about 2,000 

people. So, you know, those are variable. 

But you have to pay attention to the mean. The only way you can 

really address that is to understand it better and develop new 

knowledge about what is really driving change, what the forcing 

functions are, so to speak. It also is important that you develop 

new options, because if you are limited in the number of options, 

then you are going to have to pay the consequence of having to live 

with change as it occurs. Now, that is one of the roles that the National Science Foundation can play through our SEES [Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability] initiative and other initiatives that we are working on to work at a higher level of complexity, higher level of modeling, and rather than looking at change 

in a century, trying to understand change over a decade. But rather than looking at change on a global basis, look at change on a 

regional basis. That will take more computation. It will take more 

research. It will take better understanding of complexity. It will 

have to require the understanding of all the interrelationships involved, and they are very complex interrelationships. But the 

greatest benefit, I think, to society is, again, to offer up more technological options that one can choose from, from a public policy 

point of view. 

Mr. INGLIS. And sort of related to that, science has taken a big 

hit recently on the pages of a lot of newspapers with the ‘‘Climategate’’ e-mails. Any comments about how to restore the credibility 

of science and to help people understand that, suppose there are 

quacks, for example, in the cancer field but if you get diagnosed 

today with cancer, perhaps you want to go see somebody in the 

field. You don’t want to abandon the field. How do we persuade 

people that, really, scientific processes still work and that we have 

integrity there? 

Dr. BEMENT. I think with the issues that we are talking about 

which are highly complex, there is still not yet complete science 

convergence or consensus on some of the aspects of that change. So 

we have almost too much ambiguity or perhaps too much objectivity, if you will, in the data that currently exist. I think in that 

kind of scenario, where you are dealing with very complex issues, 

for scientists to take an advocacy position and take a piece of the 

science in order to support their advocacy position does not do service to not only the community of science but the public at large. I 

think being an honest broker and looking at all the options and objectively presenting the options is a much better course of action, 

and I think we have seen some of the consequences of being an advocate for a particular scientific position. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Bement, and thank you for your service. We really are very appreciative. 
37

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Representative Inglis. It has been fun 

working with you. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thanks. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to you 

both. I appreciate your service. I appreciate what you have done to 

promote science in this country and appreciate also the work that 

Chairman Baird has done on a group looking at ways how we can 

improve what we do with science diplomacy. I think it is very important for us moving forward in terms of building our international relations. 

But the question I wanted to ask you today had to do with the 

proposed consolidation plans for broadening participation in terms 

of the consolidated approach versus the portfolio approach, in 

terms of reaching out to different undergraduate groups of the individual programs that have been out there for Historically Black 

Colleges, the Stokes Minority Participation program, tribal colleges, 

Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Can you describe in more detail how 

you believe consolidating those under a program is going to help 

build capacity and add value, because, absolutely, I believe it is 

critical that we build that capacity. 

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. The goal of the program is really twofold. One is to capitalize on what has been 

learned from the currently targeted programs in broadening participation, but also to position the program for growth, and the reason that is so critical is that time is not favorable. By 2020, minorities will represent 39 percent of the population so they will represent a very large base for developing STEM talent for the Nation, 

which by 2050 will be a majority of minorities. So we have to find 

ways to accelerate. Linear growth is no longer acceptable. We have 

to have positive feedback and we have got to go into geometric 

growth. There has got to be acceleration. 

So what prompted our movement to this approach is what we 

have learned over the last two years in having listening sessions 

with the Hispanic community, and what we discovered that was 

uppermost on their mind was, first of all, they needed more faculty 

development. They needed more support for students. They especially needed summer academies for students to ease the transition 

from high school to college, especially in math proficiency. As we 

listened to these challenges, what we discovered is, they are very 

much the same challenges that are being faced by Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities and also Tribal Colleges and Universities. So there was an opportunity to rethink how we approach 

this problem and to ask the question, are there advantages to be 

gained rather than looking at these, as you say, as a portfolio of 

institutions. And looking at it from the standpoint of, first of all, 

how you can share knowledge, how you can network knowledge, 

how you can develop the different kind of alliances, and also how 

you can leverage the program, both financially, intellectually and 

geographically. 

The opportunities for financial leveraging within the Foundation 

are quite substantial. In EHR [Education and Human Resources] 

alone, only 29 percent of the active awards to these three types of 
38

1Originally stated incorrectly by Dr. Bement as 77 percent. 

institutions come from the HBCU [Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities] and LSAMP [Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation] programs. The majority of the awards come from a 

broad array of EHR programs. Also, if you look across the Foundation, the percentage of funding that goes to minority institutions 

from these programs is only 36 percent of the total. The other 64 1

percent comes from other parts of the Foundation, including elsewhere within EHR as well as within the R&RA [Research & Related Activities] account. But then if you had a consolidated program, one would have to look at the leveraging opportunities with 

other agencies, with the private sector, with private foundations, 

with national laboratories, with other entities who would see this 

in a much more holistic light and would see the advantages of participating and supporting the program. So in positioning the program for growth, future growth and also with regard to getting the 

benefits of leveraging, we felt that a consolidated approach is far 

better than a fragmented approach. One could go on and talk about 

administrative costs, administration cost and efficiency of operation, but that is not the primary driving force. 

We would like to propose, and this is in our planning at the 

present time—and since this is our development year, I am only 

supposed to talk conceptually. I can’t really get into a large amount 

of detail at this point. But broadly speaking, we see four tracks in 

this program going forward. The first track we would call the Louis 

Stokes Model Alliances track, which is patterned after the LSAMP 

program. It would include intramural networks in collaborations 

for information-sharing, program assessment, and development of 

instructional materials and curricula involving community colleges, 

tribal colleges, early-stage STEM programs that could benefit from 

institutions that have well-developed STEM programs, including 

majority institutions that also graduate substantial numbers of minority students in STEM. We envisage here that both MSIs and 

majority institutions could be the lead institution but we would use 

a collaborative grant approach so that we could put more money in 

the hands of the minority-serving institutions. In other words, 

grants would go to all institutions in the alliance, which is a departure from the way the programs work today. So in the case of 

MSIs, we would encourage MSIs to serve as lead institutions, but 

in the case of a non-MSI in a leadership position, we would require 

that at least two partners be MSIs as part of the alliance. 

The second track is transformational initiatives. This is focused 

primarily on capacity building to integrate education with research 

and other forms of activity-based learning in order to stimulate recruitment, retention, graduation success and to lower barriers at 

the various transition points. This would be also research-intensive. We would again expect that MSIs would be in a leadership 

position, or if not MSIs, institutions again with a proven track 

record of improving underrepresented minorities in STEM participation. 

The third track recognizes that there are cultural and contextual 

differences among different kinds of institutions, not only in terms 

of minority populations but also in terms of the type of institution, 
39

whether it is research or whether it is education only or whether 

it is a two-year university or whether it is a university that is incorporating indigenous knowledge with education, which is the case 

for many institutions. This track would focus on targeted initiatives 

in order to focus on those differences and also as a result develop 

strategies for continuous improvement for early-stage STEM program development and also growth at minority-serving two-year 

and four-year undergraduate colleges. 

The fourth track would be research. That would complement as 

well as supplement the other three tracks and it would focus in on 

overcoming specific barriers, such as math preparation or other 

areas that again are at the transition points, but it would also deal 

with grand challenges in broadening participation itself. In other 

words, what more can be done in order to leverage geographically 

and so forth. For example, the EPSCoR states have a significant 

number of minority-serving institutions. Are there strategic ways 

in which we could partner with the EPSCoR program in order to 

get further leverage in those states for building capacity and also 

providing connectivity of broadband and other needs that are necessary and essentially essential for education these days. 

So the only final points I would like to make is, first of all, we 

do understand in this program that there is a wide span of institutional types and we have to accommodate all these institutional 

types. We recognize that we need more development before this 

program can be launched, and we want to do this in a very transparent way, because we are seeking further suggestions and ideas 

from the communities at large. Furthermore, during the transition, 

recognizing that we have existing grants and some of those may be 

renewed, we see transitioning this program over a period of three 

to five years, so it is not a ‘step’ function, it is a ‘ramp’ function. 

And finally, we recognize that there are cultural and contextual 

differences that will have to be explored in the program, and in 

some cases, use them as opportunities. It is a two-way street. Many 

majority institutions can benefit from the mentoring experiences 

and the counseling experiences and the student support experiences that occur at Hispanic-Serving Institutions and Historically 

Black universities and colleges, and we want to be able to share 

that. So that is basically the outline of what we have in mind. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask 

unanimous consent to ask him a 30-second question? I know that 

was a long answer, but just one point that——

Chairman LIPINSKI. Go ahead. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Just real quickly, what about steps to help these colleges get the 

commercialization of their research? Are there are opportunities to 

help encourage and growth that capacity? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, yes. Certainly at the two-year community colleges where a lot of training is done to prepare skilled technical 

personnel for industry, we would see opportunities for partnerships. As far as technology transfer, that is something we encourage in almost all of our programs, and again, by leveraging with 

other programs, we can add that component, especially our Partnerships for Innovation, which broadly addresses not only the fun-
40

damental issue of transferring technology but especially focused on 

broadening participation. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Dr. BEMENT. Oh, I might also add, the I-cubed program, or Innovation for Institutional Integration, there are tracks in that program that would also be valuable to leverage. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. 

The Chair now recognizes Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

apologize to both witnesses for being a little late getting here. We 

have a great ability to schedule most things at the same time. 

Dr. Beering, as you know, the National Science Foundation 

maintains dozens of programs which ultimately fulfill the mandate 

of the National Science Foundation, to support all fields of science 

and engineering, and all of these programs serve different purposes 

yet share one goal of enhancing American science. My question specifically is, what mechanisms are in place at the National Science 

Foundation to measure the individual effectiveness of these programs? Or perhaps Dr. Bement. 

Dr. BEERING. I will ask Dr. Bement to enlarge upon that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Sure. 

Dr. BEMENT. We have a number of mechanisms for continuous 

improvement and also for oversight, primarily being the National 

Science Board itself, but also within the Foundation we employ 

Committees of Visitors to evaluate each and every program at least 

every three years. We have Advisory Committees that give us a 

link to the community so that we can be connected with what their 

interests are, and also to advise the Foundation on new opportunities as well as some issues. We have committees that report to the 

Director, like CEOSE [Committee On Equal Opportunities in 

Science and Engineering], for example, and like GPRA [Government Performance and Results Act] committees, GPRA committee 

especially in looking at outcomes from our programs and determining whether the programs are viable. 

But in addition to that, we have working groups across the Foundation that represent the various directorates and offices that 

probe in depth issues and policies within the Foundation as well 

as oversight, and they provide continuing review of the effectiveness of these policies. And then finally, at the direction of the current Administration, we are establishing at the Foundation level 

an office of assessment and evaluation, program assessment and 

evaluation, and we are planning on linking that with our strategic 

planning as well as evaluating our progress against our goals and 

our plans. That is in the formative stage at the present time. It is 

still being conceptualized as well as being developed. But we have 

envisioned that that will be another tool that the senior management of the Foundation can draw on in order to assist not only in 

their program plans but also in their budget planning. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. As a follow-up, as you are aware, 

there are currently over 200 Hispanic-Serving Institutions and this 

number obviously is growing very fast and seemingly will continue. 

Combining the three existing broadening participation programs 
41

2Orginally stated incorrectly by Dr. Bement as being from ‘‘all sources’’. 

into a consolidated program along with an additional fourth that 

invites proposals from these institutions calls for increased funding. 

How do you propose that a $13 million or a 14 percent increase of 

the overall funding for broadening participation programs really increased funding for every single one of these programs, each of 

which serves unique individual purposes? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, thank you for that question. First of all, if I 

take the sum total, and here I am going back to fiscal 2009 data 

because those are the best data that we have, the total funding of 

HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs came to about $113.1 million. That was from 

EHR 2 sources. If we just take these focused programs that we are talking about under broadening participation, it totaled $87 million 

in 2009. That investment was highly leveraged across the Foundation, if you include Recovery Act funding in 2009 to a total of $312 

million, so that is a substantial amount. Now, what we are proposing in this budget is $103 million, of which a small fraction will 

be used for administrative costs and those will be for networking, 

for developing a network, developing a database and developing 

services for the community. So you can compare that $103 million, 

which is not yet fully leveraged, with the $87 million that was provided in 2009. Now, the program will be competitive. It will be 

openly competitive so that, you know, every institution will have an 

opportunity to compete. So the opportunity budget for everyone is 

$103 million. Now, there is no segmentation or limitation. There is 

no artificial barrier so that this is what makes it a much more holistic approach in what will we think encourage alliances and partnerships, which is what we are really trying to achieve. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for five minutes. and I am 

going to begin with a question for Dr. Bement but also if Dr. 

Beering has any comments on this, I would appreciate those also. 

Two weeks ago in this Subcommittee, we held a hearing on research infrastructure at American universities. During that hearing, witnesses testified about the billions of dollars in deferred 

maintenance and stalled plans for new research buildings. The 

NSF had a study that came out in 2007 from a 2005 survey that 

said there is $3.6 billion in deferred maintenance for their research 

buildings. Now, I have concerns; how we can continue to compete 

with countries like China, who are pouring billions of their own 

into brand-new high-tech research facilities, when we are having 

trouble here with ours at worst crumbling, at best just falling behind? AAU [Association of American Universities] and APLU [Association of Public and Land-grant Universities] are now on record in 

favor of sustaining the Academic Research Infrastructure program, 

the ARI program, that received $200 million in the Recovery Act 

after not being funded for more than a decade. Now, NSF was not 

represented at this previous witness panel so I want to give you 

men a chance to respond now to calls to reauthorize the ARI program at NSF, and if not ARI, what else could be done to address 

this potentially serious concern that could impact America’s standing in research into the future. 
42

Dr. BEMENT. Well, first of all, I understand the concern, and I 

have visited research facilities both here and abroad. I do that as 

a regular part of my work. And it is true that the rest of the world 

is catching up. The rest of the world is investing in infrastructure 

as well as research instrumentation, so it is much more competitive. My judgment is that we are in pretty good shape but we probably aren’t as dominant as we have been in the past, and we do 

have an aging infrastructure, and the universities are stressed at 

the present time for resources because state funding has decreased, 

especially with the economic downturn, so I am very sympathetic 

with the issue. 

On the other hand, there are priorities within the Foundation 

that we haven’t met that I believe are more important than being 

the funding source of last resort for bricks and mortar, and that is 

medium-scale instrumentation and equipment. It is improving our 

success rate, continuing to push our success rates up, especially in 

some programs where they are still quite low. It is increasing the 

grant size. Our grant sizes are no longer adequate to support research groups as they had been in the past. And also in some of 

our fellowships and traineeships, our costs of education allowances 

for universities are so far out of date that universities will no 

longer submit proposals for fellowships or traineeships or scholarships because they can’t afford it. So those are still burning issues. 

I would say that ARI, although it does have some merit, comes 

under the category of choice, how you keep a program balanced, 

and my preference is to keep the research strong and allow the universities or expect the universities to find the resources necessary 

to make the usual improvements, not only in the existing infrastructure but also to operate and maintain—I should say resources 

for new infrastructure, but also to operate and maintain the existing infrastructure. That is my position. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Is there any—you had brought this up. I sort 

of want to follow up with this. Is there any new thinking by either 

the Board or the Foundation of how to approach the gap in funding 

between very small and very large instruments and facilities? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I will defer to the Chairman because the answer is yes, but I want him to explain it. 

Dr. BEERING. We have just created a new subcommittee which is 

going to evaluate that very closely, and as Dr. Bement said, we are 

not in dire straits yet. In fact, the infrastructure funding over the 

last seven years has been close to 30 percent, and I am very 

pleased that the universities have been helped by foundations and 

private donors and by businesses and industries in terms of 

partnering with NSF and other Federal agencies to keep is pointed 

in the right direction. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. The number that you had cited, the 30 percent, my understanding is it was closer to 24 percent for infrastructure. Is it——

Dr. BEMENT. Actually the real number in between. It is around 

28 percent. 

Dr. BEERING. 28 to 29. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. We will have to look more into that because 

the numbers that I have seen are not that high. It would be good 

if it is up there. 
43

3Follow up from the National Science Foundation: NSF conducts the Survey of Science and 

Engineering Research Facilities on a biennial basis. The FY 2007 survey data will be available 

upon the release of an InfoBrief by late-summer 2010. The FY 2009 survey data are expected 

to be released by early summer 2011. 4Follow up from the National Science Foundation: The proposed new comprehensive broadening participation effort at the Foundation will include attention to issues of women and persons with disabilities in STEM. The five percent (or $1 million) decrease below the FY 2010 Estimate in the current programs for research on women and persons with disabilities will allow 

for a basic research focus in those programs. Other aspects of those programs that have now 

reached critical mass (e.g., diffusion and extension service activities) will be one focus of planned 

program evaluation, so additional support through evaluation will be directed toward the programs. In the FY 2010 Estimate, 57 percent of the Research on Gender in Science and Engineering (GSE) Program budget will be available to fund new awards and 34 percent of the Research 

in Disabilities Education (RDE) program budget will be available to fund new awards, with the 

amounts remaining in both programs funding to sustain existing awards. 

I also wanted to follow up in terms of the survey. Since 1986, 

NSF has been required by law to conduct a survey of the state of 

our science and engineering research facilities every two years and 

submit a report to Congress. As far as I know, the last report was 

published in 2007, based on the fiscal year 2005 survey. I am told 

the survey was conducted last year as well, although I am not sure. 

I don’t believe there was a survey conducted in 2007. But when do 

you expect the results of the 2009 survey to become available? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I have to refer to my experts. We will provide 

that for the record.3

Chairman LIPINSKI. Okay, and it does concern me because as I 

said, the last report was based on the 2005 survey and it said $3.6 

billion in deferred maintenance, and since we don’t have another—

don’t have reports since then and we should have had at least one 

more report based on 2007 and we are still looking for the report, 

you will get me the information on the 2009 survey. It concerns me 

that we are not getting the best bang for our buck out of our research funding without having the best infrastructure that we 

could have there, but we can follow up more on that later. 

With that, I have other questions but I will finish the first round 

here and I will yield to Dr. Ehlers for five minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two fairly 

short questions, which probably require only short answers. 

But on the whole issue of the minority education, what you have 

outlined makes sense to me. Of course, I haven’t seen all the details but I think it is a good approach. But the concern I have is 

you are going to have a 14 percent increase in the funding for these 

programs. How will that affect the other work of the division of 

Human Resource Development, the opportunities for women and 

persons with disabilities, which has a five percent decrease. How 

would you see that balancing out? 

Dr. BEMENT. That is a question, the detail of which I am not prepared to go into. Some of these small changes in budget depend 

pretty much on what the renewal is for a given year, how many 

awards have to be renewed and what the opportunity is for funding 

new awards. Perhaps I can get a better answer. No, I guess we will 

provide that also for the record.4

Mr. EHLERS. All right. Thank you, and I hope we can continue 

those programs to the extent that they are needed and they are 

certainly needed. 

No NSF budget hearing would be complete without a question 

about icebreakers and it has no connection with the boilermakers 
44

you mentioned earlier. Is everything copasetic now? Is the Coast 

Guard happy? Are you happy? 

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as far as our working relationship, I think we 

have a good relationship. We are still operating under a memorandum of understanding that we have negotiated. The problem is 

that we were mandated, and so was the Coast Guard, for that matter, to shift the funding from the National Science Foundation to 

the Department of Homeland Security for the operation and maintenance of the icebreakers, where the Foundation would then pay 

incremental costs for icebreaking services. Now, that didn’t happen. 

Those funds were not in the budget for the Coast Guard in the 

2011 budget, so in order to sustain our mission, we have had to 

again provide operations and maintenance costs out of the NSF 

budget. That is a default position which we regret but it is important. 

Mr. EHLERS. And how much money does that involve? 

Dr. BEMENT. It is about $52 million—$54 million. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, that is considerably less than Homeland Security is going to spend for the new screening methodology, so there 

should be a little money there somewhere. I hope we can find that 

through the budget process. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

First one follow-up along the lines of the last questioning. When 

do you expect that the grants will be made for ARI under the Recovery Act program? Because I keep hearing that they are expected 

in the near future, and as far as I know, no grants have been made 

in that. 

Dr. BEMENT. I think all the proposals have been evaluated. I 

think the grants are imminent, probably this month. April through 

July. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you. 

I wanted to move on to talking about high-risk, high-reward research. In 2007, at the same time this committee was developing 

the America COMPETES Act, the National Science Board released 

a report calling for NSF to establish a transformative research initiative. There are a few details in that report and in the Gathering 

Storm recommendations but there is an eight percent set-aside at 

each agency. Since then, the ARISE [Advancing Research in 

Science and Engineering] report has spelled out more detailed recommendations and NSF has experimented with different approaches to meeting this need. So first, Dr. Bement, can you elaborate on some of those approaches and give us an idea of what percentage of your total research budget is, and ideally, should be, 

dedicated to this effort on transformative research? 

Dr. BEMENT. This is a philosophical point because the focus on 

the Foundation has been that we pay much more attention to the 

frontiers of science and that we try to push the community closer 

to that frontier so that basically all the grants that we fund would 

be potentially transformative. It is very difficult to know at the 

onset whether it will actually be transformative until the research 

is carried out. But in terms of higher risk, higher risk was a priority in the use of our Recovery Act funds. We funded a number 

of programs that I have reviewed that are very exciting, are poten-
45

tially transformative. But to get to your question, in the 2010 budget we have allocated $92 million across the Foundation, $2 million 

per division, and we are using this year as a development year to 

experiment on different approaches for supporting transformative 

research. In fact, my hope is that those in the community that feel 

that they can submit a proposal and reduce the risk in the proposal 

in order to get it past a review committee may get their proposal 

denied on the basis that it doesn’t have enough risk. So this is the 

games that we play back and forth with the community with regard to risk. 

But there are three categories of innovations that we are currently looking at. One has to do with the review process itself, the 

merit review process, and the training we give not only to our program officers but also the reviewers, and what our expectation is, 

what our definition of transformative research is, which was developed by the Board. Now, the second has to do with incentivizing 

transformative research through venture funding, through other 

mechanisms to incentivize program officers to pick out those programs that are perhaps a little below the line but nevertheless are 

very exciting and very transformative and be able to fund them. 

The third has to do with other methodologies or modalities for not 

only the way we phrase our solicitations, but also how we do our 

workshops in order to identify areas that would be potentially 

transformative. So there are a number of different methodologies 

that are being explored by the various divisions at this point. 

So this is the activity that is currently going on. The question is 

or what is before us is actually putting in place a program evaluation of all these different approaches to see what their effectiveness 

is and what we can pull out as a best practice. And the best practices that are effective will be the ones that will be propagated 

across the Foundation in future years. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. As a result of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill, the NSF engaged the National Academy of Sciences to 

study innovation inducement prizes. That NAS report recommended that NSF embrace the challenge and stated that innovation inducement prize contests will be a sound investment in 

strengthening the infrastructure for U.S. innovation. I agree with 

the NAS on this and I think that innovation inducement prizes not 

only support transformative research in a way that complements 

traditional NSF grant making, but they can increase public recognition of scientific and research accomplishments. Do either of 

you have any recommendations concerning a potential prize program? 

Dr. BEMENT. Obviously this has been on our plate for a long 

time. There are prizes that do make sense and prizes that don’t 

make sense for the Foundation. The ones that do make sense are 

the ones that fit in with our mission and our purpose. We don’t do 

systems engineering, we don’t develop prototypes like a DARPA 

[Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], for example. So 

there are some types of inducement prizes that deal with whole 

systems, like developing a single launch to space or developing a 

new solar car or something of that type, which doesn’t really fit the 

NSF mission. On the other hand, there are a couple of ideas that 

we have been exploring that I think do make sense. Oh, by the 
46

way, we also have prizes in the Foundation. We have the Waterman prize, for example. We give Presidential medals, or we manage the Presidential medal program for science and for teachers 

and for mentors. But in terms of inducement, we have two criteria 

for our merit review process. One is scientific merit and the other 

is broadening participation. We argue that these criteria have 

equal weight, but on the one hand, we recognize achievement on 

the scientific merit side but we don’t recognize achievement in 

broadening participation. I am sorry, and other impacts, broader 

impacts, the importance of that is, we need to recognize citizen scientists who make a contribution to society and are connected with 

society and the world, the so-called citizen scientists rather than 

just the scientists in the ivory tower. So a prize that would 

incentivize attention to broadening participation and give recognition for outstanding achievements in what is being done already in 

that category, I think would be very important. It would stimulate 

the community. It would also give tangible evidence that we do pay 

attention to broader impacts. 

The second area would be in innovation. It is very important that 

new concepts, and new knowledge transfer into the community 

broadly for economic development where possible and find their 

way into the marketplace. That is very much in our mission space. 

It is recognized in a number of programs that we support to not 

only exploit new concepts but also to provide talent, educated talent, through our graduate programs by integrating research with 

education. They eventually will go into the private sector and become the innovators and the entrepreneurs in our society. 

It occurs to me that if we had an innovation prize at the national 

level that would be based on competitions that are held internally 

with universities to pick the best concept where it is not just based 

on the scientific merit of the concept but would also have to identify how that concept would be transferred, how it would be 

launched and how it would be accelerated. So this is a prize that 

could also require matching funds from the private sector—at least 

those who would benefit from the transfer activity—or it could even 

be state loans or other forms of support so it would be a matched 

prize, and this could be a competition, for example, that would be 

adjudicated by the National Academy of Engineering. We would 

have to support that. In order for the universities to be interested 

in entering into this prize program, there would have to be a reward for the winning university that puts forward the concept. So 

the prize would not only—there would not only be a part of the 

prize that would go to the university, but there would be a major 

prize that would go to the entrepreneur or the innovator at the university that would be matched by private sector funding. That is 

the concept. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Bement. 

Anything else, Dr. Beering, on that or following up? 

Dr. BEERING. Some years ago, I was privileged to chair the series 

of seminars and hearings around the Nation on K–12 education, 

and out of that came our acquaintance with Secretary Chu now, 

who helped us with our energy symposium, and the education secretary, who was remarkable in our seminar in Chicago, and I think 

what it all comes down to is, we need to invest in people with ideas 
47

who have a passion for science and education and who are broadly 

engaged in their views, who have vision and who have the steadfastness to pursue that vision, and I am just delighted with the 

way we are doing right now. Things are really moving in a very 

productive direction and I am strengthened in that belief because 

of the marvelous staff that we have at NSF and the very imaginative work that is going on throughout the enterprise. I am very optimistic about the future, and I think we are going to continue to 

do well. Thank you very much for hearing us. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. That is an excellent way to conclude the 

hearing today, and I thank both of you again for your testimony 

and for your service to our country and to science. 

So with that, the record will remain open for two weeks for additional statements from Members and for answers to any follow-up 

questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses. 

With that, the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ