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

80–559PDF 2013

AN OVERVIEW OF THE 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013 

Serial No. 113–20 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY WEBER, Texas 

CHRIS STEWART, Utah 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC VEASEY, Texas 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

MARK TAKANO, California 

ROBIN KELLY, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

HON. LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana, Chair 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Larry Bucshon, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Statement by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

Witnesses: 

The Honorable Cora Marrett, Acting Director, National Science Foundation 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

The Honorable Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board 

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

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 26 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 36 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

The Honorable Cora Marrett, Acting Director, National Science Foundation ... 52 

The Honorable Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board ........................ 62 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

National Science Foundation .................................................................................. 68 

(1) 

AN OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE 

FOUNDATION BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:25 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Larry Bucshon 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

CHAIRMAN 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

RANKING MEMBER 

liongrrns of the ilnitrd ~tatrn 

iIUIust of ~r(Stntatin(S 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFF!CE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

(202) 225-6371 

WWlN.sc!ence.house.gov 

Subcommittee on Research Hearing 

An Overview o/the National Science Foundation Budget/or Fiscal Year 2014 

Wednesday, April 17,2013 

2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Witnesses 

The Honorable Dr. Cora Marrett, Acting Director, National Science Foundation 

The Honorable Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH 

HEARING CHARTER 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2014 

1. Purpose 

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 

2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, the Subcommittee on Research will review the 

Administration's fiscal year 2014 (FYI4) budget request for the National Science Foundation. 

2. Wituesses 

The Honorable Dr. Cora Marrett, Acting Director, National Science Foundation 

The Honorable Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National Science Board 

3. Hearing Overview 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by 

Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, 

and welfare; to secure the national defense ... " With a budget request of $7.626 billion for FY 

2014, 8.4% or $593 million over FY 2012 enacted, the NSF is the funding source for over 20 

percent of all federally-supported basic research conducted at almost 1,900 American colleges, 

universities, and other research institutions. The NSF has supported the research of over 200 

Nobel Laureates, including ten Nobel prize winners named in 2012. For over 60 years, NSF 

investments in fundamental research have fueled scientific, technological, and engineering 

innovations that directly affect the everyday lives of Americans. This hearing will discuss how 

the Administration set funding priorities for NSF research in its FY 2014 budget request and the 

proposal to consolidate more Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

education within NSF, the Department of Education, and the Smithsonian Institute from other 

federal science agencies. 

NSF Overview 

The NSF is the primary source of federal funding for non-medical basic research. The 

NSF is the major source of federal funding for many fields like mathematics, computer science, 

and the social sciences. It supports the fundamental investigations that ultimately serve as the 

foundation for progress in nationally significant areas such as national security, technologydriven economic growth, energy independence, health care, nanotechnology, and networking and 

information technology. 
4 

Through over 11,700 competitive awards per year, NSF supports an averagc of 326,000 

scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over 

the U.S. and throughout the world. These grants fund specific research proposals that have been 

judged the most promising by a merit-review system. 

National Science Foundation (NSF) Spending (dollars in mIllions 

FY13 FY14 Request Versus 

FY12 FY14 Account Actual CRI Request FY12 Placeholder* FY12Actuai Enacted 

$ % $ 

Research and Related Activities (RRA) 5758.3 5689 6212.29 453.99 7.9 523.29 

Biological Sciences (8fO) 712.3 712.38 760.58 48.3 6.8 48.2 

Computer and Info. Science and Engineering (elSE) 937.2 865.23 950.25 13.09 1.4 85.02 

Engineering (ENG) 824.6 826.17 911.12 86.57 10.5 84.95 

Geosciences (GEO) 1321.4 1321.14 1393.86 72.49 5.5 72.72 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MSP) 1308.7 1308.94 1386.12 77.42 5.9 77.18 

Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) 254.2 254.25 272.35 18.16 7.1 18.1 

International Science and Engineering (OISE) 398.6 399.44 636.82 138.02 34.6 137.18 

U. S. Arctic Research Commission 1.5 1.45 1.4 -0.05 -3.8 -0.05 

Education and Human Resources (EHR) 830.5 829 880.29 49.75 6 51_29 

Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction 198.1 197.06 210.12 12.04 6.1 13.07 (MREFC) 

Agency Operations & Award Management 

~ 299.4 304.29 4.99 1.7 4.89 

National Science Board (NSB) 4.44 4.47 0.1 2.3 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) 14.2 14.32 0.2 1.4 

FY 2013 Adjustment 43.04 

Totals: 7105.41 7076.14 7625.78 520.37 7.3 

. ThiS column represents placeholder budget for FY 2013 that NSF provided to tbe Committee on April 10, 

2013. These amounts do not reflect the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of2013 

(P.L. 113-6, enacted Marcb 26, 2013) 

NSF Budget Summary' 

0.03 

0_12 

592.69 

The FY14 budget request for NSF is $7.63 billion, an increase of 8.4 percent, or $593 

million over the FY12 enacted level. NSF has not yet provided its actual budget for FY 2013 for 

the agency, as the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-6) 

was enacted on March 26, 2013. The budget for NSF is divided into three major accounts: 

Research and Related Activities, Education and Human Resources, and Major Research 

Equipment and Facilities Construction. It also includes funding requests for Agency Operations 

and Award Management, the National Science Board, and the Office of Inspector General. 

In the NSF's FY 2014 budget presentation provided to the Committee, the NSF identified 

6 priority investments, which encompass roughly 11 percent of the FY 2014 budget. 

I http://www.nsf.gov/aboutlbudgetlfy2014/index.jsp 

2 

% 

9.2 

6.8 

9.8 

10.3 

5.5 

5.9 

7.1 

34.3 

-3.8 

6.2 

6_6 

1.6 

0.7 

0.8 

8.4 
5 

These priorities are: 

I) Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems; 

2) Cyber-infrastructure Framework for 21 st Century Science, Engineering, and Education; 

3) NSF Innovation Corps; 

4) Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education; 

5) Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability; 

6) Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace. 

While the NSF's FY 2014 budget presentation provided to the Committee did not 

highlight the NSF's contribution to the Administration's Brain Research through Advancing 

Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative as a priority, $14 million in additional 

spending is requested for Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. The Administration's BRAIN 

Initiative is a joint research project between federal science agencies- NSF, the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)-

and private sector partners in research of brain disorders ranging from Alzheimer's and 

Parkinson's disease, epilepsy, autism, and injuries. President Obama announced the BRAIN 

Initiative on April 2nd prior to presenting his FY 2014 budget request.2 The initiative has been 

met with some skepticism by the research community for its intent and how it might divert funds 

from other research.3 

The NSF has also highlighted its plan to invest $210 million in major research equipment 

and facilities construction (MREFC), with an initial funding request for the Large Synoptic 

Survey telescope, as well as funding to further development of the National Ecological 

Observatory Network, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope, the Ocean Observatories 

Initiative, and the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. 

The budget request also reflects the Administration's proposal for a government-wide 

reorganization of federal STEM education programs. NSF will lead the Administration's work 

on undergraduate STEM education with a new $123 million program-Catalyzing Advances in 

Undergraduate STEM Education (CAUSE). The request also includes over $325 million for a 

National Graduate Research Fellowship program, building on the current Graduate Research 

Fellowship (GRF) program; $55 million for NSF Research Traineeship, building on the 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship IGERT program; and over $79 million 

to enhance Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites and Supplements. 

2 http://www.whitehouse.govlblogl2013/04/02Ibrain-initiative-challenges-researchers-unlock-mysteries-humanmind 

3 http://www.npr.orgl2013/04/05/176303594/researchers-question-obamas-motives-for-brain-initiative 

3 
6 

Chairman BUCSHON. Good afternoon. Welcome to today’s hearing 

entitled, ‘‘An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget 

for Fiscal Year 2014.’’ In front of you are packets containing the 

written testimony, biographies, and truth in testimony disclosures 

for today’s witnesses. 

I now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. 

Thank you to everyone here today for this Research Subcommittee hearing. I am pleased to welcome Acting Director, Dr. 

Marrett, and President Arvizu to discuss NSF’s priorities for Fiscal 

Year 2014. Thank you both for coming. 

Before we begin today’s hearing, I would like to make a few comments about the recent budget proposed by the President for 2014. 

Today our national debt stands at almost $17 trillion, and 62 cents 

of every dollar is spent on our mandatory spending or entitlement 

programs, and everyone pretty much agrees that these are the 

largest drivers of our debt. Since 2008, approximately 19 cents of 

every dollar has been spent on Medicare and Medicaid, and four 

years later we are currently spending 23 cents of every dollar on 

these programs. Without reform this trend will continue. 

Before my time in Congress, as a cardio thoracic surgeon in 

Evansville, Indiana, I saw firsthand how these spiraling costs were 

crowding out funding for other federally-funded programs like scientific research and development. 

Instead of, in my view, showing leadership, the President has 

spent his time in office defending a healthcare law that makes matters even worse. The Administration has not offered a pathway forward on our mandatory spending programs other than continually 

cutting the funding for provider reimbursement to hospitals and 

practitioners, risking access to quality healthcare for our Nation’s 

seniors. 

At this point I don’t see any evidence the Affordable Care Act 

will lower medical costs in the future. Instead it continues to irresponsibly add to our yearly deficit and total national debt in spite 

of the rhetoric to the contrary. 

Unfortunately, the proposed Fiscal Year budget from the Administration has a lot of accounting gimmicks. Because of the Administration’s failed leadership and failed economic policies, we are left 

with non-targeted cuts in sequestration and ongoing record deficits 

and debt. Washington’s inability to address these fiscal issues is 

hampering the ability of our economy to recover from recession. 

Hardworking Americans who stand to benefit from the research 

and technology our country develops may be the victims. House Republicans have tried to address these issues by passing responsible 

budgets for the last three years, however, we have not—we don’t 

control Washington, D.C. The other budgets offered from our 

friends on the other side have included higher taxes, more spending, and more importantly for this discussion, don’t begin to address the significant drivers of our debt, and that is our mandatory 

programs. In addition, the budgets that have been proposed never 

balance. 

I stress in my view if we do not address our mandatory spending 

programs, funding for all other Federal programs will continue to 

feel the financial pinch. 
7 

Imagine the high-paying jobs that will result when today’s basic 

science discoveries turn into tomorrow’s marketable technologies. 

Tomorrow’s prosperity depends on what we do here today. 

And back to our present situation and the current year budget 

for the National Science Foundation. We must now focus on answering what is the appropriate role of the Federal Government in 

funding science research. I believe by asking this and related questions we can create a stronger, more efficient National Science 

Foundation—nimble enough to tackle the numerous scientific challenges of tomorrow. As a Nation we must focus our scientific priorities and stretch every dollar for maximum benefit in these tight 

financial times. 

As an example, do we need to fund studies such as the International Criminal Court in Pursuit of Justice, $260,000 funded 

through NSF? I think that is a good discussion to have. These can 

be luxury things to fund. It would be nice to fund if we have the 

money, but it is not something in my view that we need to fund. 

This type of research may be more appropriately funded through 

the private sector or other government agencies. 

Our charge is to ensure the American taxpayer is getting value 

for their hard-earned dollars that we spend on research through 

NSF. I strongly support NSF funding in mathematics, physics, 

chemistry, biology, engineering, cyber security, and STEM education, among others. Although the scientific community is not facing ideal fiscal environments, I still believe that America’s best and 

brightest scientists will continue to persevere and produce the innovations and discoveries of tomorrow. We should support the 

hardworking scientist who stays up all night to repeat their experiments and doggedly pursues their ideas because they believe they 

are onto the next great discovery and may answer the next big 

question in their chosen field. 

I recently visited several universities and colleges in Indiana, including Purdue University and Indiana University, and talked to 

NSF-funded researchers, and I was impressed. I still have a great 

faith and optimism in the scientific community and that its 

strength will continue and improve. 

But for American science to succeed we must be sure that the 

NSF remains focused on its scientific goals and missions. I look forward to the thoughtful discussion that will ensue. 

At this point I would also like to thank Ranking Member Lipinski and everyone participating in today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucshon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH CHAIRMAN LARRY BUCSHON

Good afternoon and thank you to everyone here for today’s Research subcommittee hearing. I am pleased to welcome Acting Director Dr. Marrett and President Dr. Arvizu to discuss NSF’s priorities for fiscal year 2014. Thank you both for 

coming. 

Before we begin today’s hearing, I would like to make a few comments about the 

President’s proposed FY 2014 budget. Today, our national debt stands at almost $17 

trillion dollars. 62 cents of every dollar is spent on our entitlement programs and 

everyone agrees these are the largest drivers of our debt. Before President Obama 

took office, approximately 19 cents of every dollar was spent on Medicare and Medicaid. Four years later, this has risen to 23 cents of every dollar. Without reform 

this trend will continue. 
8 

Before my time in Congress, as a cardio thoracic surgeon in Evansville, Indiana, 

I saw first-hand how these spiraling costs were crowding out funding for other federally funded programs, like scientific research and development. 

Instead of showing leadership, the President has spent his time in office defending 

a health care law which makes matters worse. The Administration has offered no 

path forward on Medicare and Medicaid other than cutting funding for provider reimbursement, risking access to quality healthcare for our nation’s senior citizens. 

I don’t see any evidence that Obama-care will lower medical costs in the future; 

instead it irresponsibly adds to our yearly deficit and total national debt in spite 

of the misguided rhetoric to the contrary from the Administration. 

Unfortunately, the President’s proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget boils down to accounting gimmicks. Because of this administration’s failed leadership and failed economic policies, we are left with the non-targeted cuts in sequestration and ongoing 

record deficits and debt. Washington’s inability to address these fiscal issues is hampering the ability of our economy to recover from the recession. 

Hardworking Americans who stand to benefit from the research and technology 

our country develops will be the victims. House Republicans have tried to address 

these issues by passing responsible budgets for the past three years. However, we 

don’t control Washington. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered up 

budgets with higher taxes and more spending, that does not address significant entitlement reform, but also never balances. 

I stress, if we do not address our mandatory spending programs, funding for all 

other federal government programs will continue to feel the financial pinch. Imagine 

the high-paying jobs that will result when today’s basic scientific discoveries turn 

into tomorrow’s marketable technologies. Tomorrow’s prosperity depends on what 

we do today. Back to our present situation, and the current year budget for the 

NSF. We must now focus on answering, ‘‘what is the appropriate role of the Federal 

government in funding science research?’’ I believe by asking this and related questions, we can create a stronger, more efficient NSF, nimble enough to tackle the numerous scientific challenges of tomorrow. 

As a nation, we must focus on our scientific priorities and stretch every dollar for 

maximum benefit. As an example, do we really need a study entitled ‘‘The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice’’ that was funded for $260,000 

by the NSF? I think it’s a nice luxury to have people study this topic. But it’s not 

something that we need NSF to fund. This type of research is more appropriately 

funded by private entities or other government agencies. 

Our charge is to ensure the American taxpayer is getting value for their hard 

earned dollars that we spend on research through the NSF. I strongly support NSF 

funding in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, cyber security, 

and STEM education. Although the scientific community is not facing an ideal fiscal 

environment, I still believe that America’s best and brightest scientists will continue 

to persevere and produce the innovations and discoveries of tomorrow. 

We should support the hard-working scientist who stays up all night to repeat her 

experiments and doggedly pursues her ideas, because she believes she is onto a 

great discovery and will answer the big questions in her field. After visiting several 

universities and colleges in Indiana earlier this month, my faith and optimism in 

the scientific community is stronger than ever. But for American science to succeed, 

we must make sure that the NSF remains focused on its scientific goals and missions. 

I look forward to the thoughtful discussion that will ensue. I would also like to 

thank Ranking Member Lipinski and everyone participating in today’s hearing. 

Chairman BUCSHON. With that I now recognize the Ranking 

Member, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, for holding this 

hearing, and I want to welcome Dr. Marrett and Dr. Arvizu. 

Let me begin by saying that I understand that America faces a 

serious debt threat. If we don’t do anything to reign in our longterm debt our economic future will be imperiled. Solving this problem requires some budget cuts, but I hope that going forward we 

can make these cuts in a smart way that addresses the various 

near-term and long-term challenges that our Nation faces. 

In doing this we will have to set priorities. Sometimes when you 

set priorities, this will mean cutting spending, and sometimes it 
9 

may mean increasing investments in areas that deliver real returns for taxpayers by improving our quality of life, protecting our 

population from natural and manmade threats, and ensuring our 

economic competitiveness. 

Therefore, I am pleased that the Administration’s Fiscal Year 

2014 budget request continues to emphasize science, innovation, 

and STEM education generally and the National Science Foundation in particular. 

Even though NSF has fared well in recent appropriations bills, 

continued uncertainty over funding levels has hurt scientific 

progress. The agencies and universities can’t plan. Some of the best 

and brightest give up and leave their labs, and the younger generation sees what their mentors are up against and choose a different 

path altogether. 

Our own Committee will have the opportunity to weigh in on 

budget and programmatic priorities across the agency as we consider an NSF Reauthorization Bill sometime in the next several 

weeks. So I appreciate this opportunity to learn more about the nature and scope of research and STEM education activities proposed 

in the budget. 

Let me just comment on a few of the priorities described in the 

budget. First, you will not be surprised that I am excited to see the 

proposed increase in the I–Corps Program. As I have said many 

times now, I strongly believe that this program embodies the NSF’s 

original mission of both promoting the progress of science and advancing the national prosperity. Although it is only a fraction of a 

percent of NSF’s budget, early results support my long-held belief 

that I–Corps will yield exponential benefits, helping turn NSF’s research investments into new companies and jobs for the benefit of 

all Americans. 

Last summer I hosted a field hearing in Chicago to learn more 

about this program and its early successes. For my new colleagues 

who haven’t looked at this program in depth, it is important to note 

that this program educates scientists on how to develop viable commercial products from their research. It connects them with likemind venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. 

The final decisions on whether or not to commercialize research 

still rests with the scientists in question, and of course, with the 

private sector which would fund the ideas. Already we are seeing 

results with I–Corps graduates such as Neon receiving venture 

capital funding for a product developed through the program. This 

public-private partnership is in the best tradition of U.S. science 

policy, and I look forward to working with the NSF as this program 

develops. 

Second, I am pleased with the continued emphasis on Advanced 

Manufacturing at NSF and several other agencies. We must regrow 

our American manufacturing base and we will not do it with the 

technologies and processes of yesterday. But the small and medium-sized industries that comprise a significant portion of our 

manufacturing capacity can’t do it all on their own, and they certainly don’t have the resources or capacity to invest in most farreaching R&D. NSF plays a critical role in funding basic research 

with potential application to advanced manufacturing technologies 

and processes of the future. 
10 

There are many other interesting proposals in this budget request, including the increased focus on big data, the expansion of 

the INSPIRE Program to support interdisciplinary research and 

NSF’s plan to begin to implement the OSTP Policy Memorandum 

on public access to the results of federally-funded research. It is 

also good to see that all the current MREFC projects are on track, 

and NSF is moving ahead with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. 

I will wrap up with a few comments and questions about the 

agency’s proposals for consolidating many of its STEM education 

programs, both within the agency and as part of the Administration’s federal-wide STEM reorganization. Mostly I would like to 

hear more details about all of these proposals because some of 

them seem to still be rough sketches. 

For example, with respect to the consolidated National Graduate 

Research Fellowship Program, I have no doubt that NSF’s own 

graduate research fellowships will continue without disruption, but 

I wonder how NSF will work with the mission agencies to ensure 

that their mission-specific needs are being met through this new 

consolidated national program administered by NSF. 

I would also like to understand better what is being proposed for 

graduate traineeships and what is new about the consolidated undergraduate program or if it is mostly a repackaging of existing 

programs. I suspect many of my colleagues will have STEM questions for you today also. 

With that I want to thank, again, Dr. Marrett and Dr. Arvizu, 

for being here today. I look forward to your testimony and our discussion. 

With that I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lipinski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MINORITY MEMBER DANIEL LIPINSKI

Thank you Chairman Bucshon for holding this hearing and welcome Dr. Marrett 

and Dr. Arvizu. 

Let me begin by saying that I understand that America faces a serious debt 

threat. If we do not do anything to rein-in our long-term debt, our economic future 

will be imperiled. Solving this problem will require some budget cuts. But I hope 

that going forward we can make these cuts in a smart way that addresses the various near-term and long-term challenges that our nation faces. 

In doing this, we will have to set priorities. Sometimes priority-setting means increasing investments in areas that deliver real returns for taxpayers by improving 

our quality of life, protecting our population from natural and man-made threats, 

and ensuring our economic competitiveness. Therefore, I am pleased that the Administration’s FY14 budget request continues to emphasize science, innovation, and 

STEM education generally, and the National Science Foundation in particular. 

Even though NSF has fared well in recent appropriations bills, continued uncertainty over funding levels has hurt scientific progress. The agency and universities 

can’t plan, some of the best and brightest give up and leave their labs, and the 

younger generation sees what their mentors are up against and choose a different 

path altogether. 

Our own Committee will have the opportunity to weigh in on budget and programmatic priorities across the agency as we consider an NSF reauthorization bill 

sometime in the next several weeks. So I appreciate this opportunity to learn more 

about the nature and scope of research and STEM education activities proposed in 

the budget. 

Let me just comment on a few of the priorities described in the budget. First, you 

will not be surprised that I am excited to see the proposed increase for the I-Corps 

program. As I’ve said many times now, I strongly believe that this program embodies the NSF’s original mission of both promoting the progress of science and ad-
11 

vancing the national prosperity. Although it’s only a fraction of a percent of NSF’s 

budget, early results support my long-held belief that I-Corps will yield exponential 

benefits, helping turn NSF’s research investments into new companies and jobs for 

the benefit of all Americans. 

Last summer I hosted a field hearing in Chicago to learn more about this program 

and its early successes. For my new colleagues who haven’t looked at this program 

in depth, it is important to note that this program educates scientists on how to develop viable commercial products from their research and connects them with likeminded venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. The final decisions on whether or not 

to commercialize research still rest with the scientists in question and, of course, 

with the private sector which would fund the ideas. Already we are seeing results 

with I-Corps graduates such as Neon receiving venture capital funding for a product 

developed through the program. This public-private partnership is in the best tradition of US science policy and I look forward to working with the NSF as this program develops. 

Second, I am pleased with the continued emphasis on advanced manufacturing at 

NSF and several other agencies. We must regrow our American manufacturing 

base, and we will not do it with the technologies and processes of yesterday. But 

the small and medium-sized industries that comprise a significant portion of our 

manufacturing capacity can’t do it all on their own, and they certainly don’t have 

the resources or capacity to invest in the most far-reaching R&D. NSF plays a critical role in funding basic research with potential application to the advanced manufacturing technologies and processes of the future. 

There are many other interesting proposals in this budget request, including the 

increased focus on big data, the expansion of the INSPIRE program to support 

interdisciplinary research, and NSF’s plans to begin to implement the OSTP policy 

memorandum on public access to the results of federally funded research. It’s also 

good to see that all of the current MREFC projects are on track and NSF is moving 

ahead with the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope. 

I will wrap up with a few comments and questions about the Agency’s proposals 

for consolidating many of its STEM education programs, both within the Agency 

and as part of the Administration’s federal-wide STEM reorganization. Mostly, I’d 

like to hear more details about all of these proposals, because some of them seem 

to be still just rough sketches. For example, with respect to the consolidated National Graduate Research Fellowship Program, I have no doubt that NSF’s own 

graduate research fellowships will continue without disruption, but I wonder how 

NSF will work with the mission agencies to ensure that their mission-specific needs 

are being met through this new consolidated national program administered by 

NSF. I’d also like to understand better what’s being proposed for graduate 

traineeships, and what’s new about the consolidated undergraduate program, or if 

it’s mostly a repackaging of existing programs. I suspect many of my colleagues will 

have STEM questions for you today. 

I thank Dr. Marrett and Dr. Arvizu for being here today; I look forward to your 

testimony and our discussion. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. 

I now recognize the Chairman of the full Committee, Chairman 

Smith, for an opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to follow up on your good opening statement in regard to the National 

Science Foundation funding. 

We are now in a situation where we must maximize every dollar 

being spent by every Federal agency. Our focus should be on how 

the Federal Government, including the National Science Foundation, can maximize returns from taxpayer-funded research. How 

can the NSF better prioritize which areas of science and engineering it supports? 

The NSF has great potential to help American science flourish 

and thus contribute to our economy and the wellbeing of our country. But in my view the NSF has funded several studies that 

should not have been approved. However, I do not think that we 

should pick winners and losers by micromanaging grant decisions 

at the NSF. It is the responsibility of the professionals at the NSF 
12 

to exercise their best judgment and ensure that only proposals that 

benefit the taxpayer get funded. It is Congress’ job to ensure accountability and transparency for the American taxpayer. How do 

we avoid micromanaging but achieve accountability at the National 

Science Foundation? And how do we ensure an environment where 

the creativity and the determination of our very best scientists is 

encouraged? 

Mr. Chairman, let me stop there but say that I hope that our 

witnesses will be able to address some of these questions. They are 

not easy, and it requires, I think, a common understanding and appreciation for what the National Science Foundation does but also 

a recognition that we may be able to improve the process whereby 

the NSF grants are approved. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH

Thank you , Mr. Chairman. And I want to follow up on your good opening statement in regard to the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. 

We are now in a situation where we must maximize every dollar being spent by 

every federal agency. 

Our focus should be on how the federal government, including the National 

Science Foundation, can maximize the returns from taxpayer-funded research. 

How can the NSF better prioritize which areas of science and engineering it supports? 

The NSF has great potential to help American science flourish and thus contribute to our economy and the well-being of our country. 

But in my view, the NSF has funded several studies that should not have been 

approved. However, I do not think that we should pick winners and losers by micromanaging grant decisions at the NSF. 

It is the responsibility of the professionals at the NSF to exercise their best judgment and ensure that only proposals that benefit the taxpayer get funded. 

It is Congress’ job to ensure accountability and transparency for the American 

taxpayer. How do we avoid micromanaging but achieve accountability at the National Science Foundation? 

And how do we ensure an environment where the creativity and the determination of our very best scientists is encouraged? 

Mr. Chairman let me stop there but say that I hope that our witnesses will be 

able to address some of these questions. 

They are not easy and it requires, I think, a common understanding and appreciation for what the National Science Foundation does. But also recognition that we 

may be able to improve the process whereby the NSF grants are approved. And I 

yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I 

would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Cora 

Marrett, the Acting Director of the National Science Foundation. 

She has served in this role since March 2013, and was previously 

confirmed as NSF’s Deputy Director in May 2011. Prior to that Dr. 

Marrett served as the NSF as the Assistant Director for Education 

and Human Resources and the Assistant Director for the Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences. She has also held positions at the 

University of Wisconsin and the University of Massachusetts at 

Amherst. Dr. Marrett has a Bachelor of Arts from Virginia Union 

University and a Master of Arts and a Doctorate from Wake Forest 

University. Welcome. 

Our next witness is Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman of the National 

Science Foundation Board. In 2004, Dr. Arvizu was appointed by 

President George W. Bush for a six-year term on the National 
13 

Science Board and in 2010, was reappointed by President Barack 

Obama to a second six-year term. In 2012, Dr. Arvizu was elected 

as Chairman of the NSB. Dr. Arvizu is the Director and Chief Executive of the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. Dr. Arvizu has a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from New Mexico State University and a Master of Science degree and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from 

Stanford University. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

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

have five minutes each to ask questions. 

I now recognize Dr. Marrett for five minutes to present her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CORA MARRETT, 

ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

Dr. MARRETT. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member 

Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is indeed my privilege to be able to be here with you today to present the National 

Science Foundation’s budget for the 2014 fiscal year. 

NSF is the only Federal agency dedicated to support basic research and education in all fields of science and engineering. That 

wide-angle vision has permitted unprecedented developments over 

the past 60 years and seems especially imperative for the complex 

problems and the question that the Nation currently faces. 

Our mission and our reach can be expressed quite simply. We 

empower the discoveries that keep our Nation at the forefront, the 

forefront of the world’s innovation enterprise. So for more than six 

decades we have supported fundamental research and education 

that has pushed forward the frontiers of scientific knowledge. 

We allocate 94 percent of our budget directly in support of research, education, and scientific infrastructure. That means we 

work with a very lean six percent administrative overhead. We invest directly into the Nation’s research and development enterprise 

by making approximately 10,000 merit-reviewed awards to researchers and educators in all disciplines. 

It is only with a strong commitment and partnership with Congress, and this Subcommittee specifically, that we have created and 

refined the world’s gold standard for science funding. That standard having to be merit review. We greatly appreciate the longstanding support of the full Committee, the Subcommittee for the 

strong model that we have in place. 

The request before you is for $7.6 billion. This is an increase of 

$500 million over Fiscal Year 2012. We know this is an era of fiscal 

restraint that requires difficult trade-offs. The overall support for 

NSF reflects the Administration’s clear determination to build on 

the Nation’s history of success and leading-edge discovery and innovation. 

Most of our funding goes into core fundamental research, but we 

also make major targeted investments that enable cutting-edge research. As we look at the infrastructure that is necessary, these encompass telescopes, ships, other facilities and capabilities. Some of 

our best examples draw on NSF’s legacy of funding visionary computer science, and this is a part of a comprehensive portfolio of ad-
14 

vanced computational infrastructure, infrastructure programs, and 

other resources. 

In the last year we launched three new advanced facilities. Yellowstone at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Wyoming, Stampede at the Texas Advanced Computing Center, thank 

you very much, Mr. Smith, for being there, Blue Waters at the University of Illinois with Mr. Lipinski. The recently-launched Alaska 

Region Research Vessel, Sikuliaq, will soon embark on its first 

science mission. It will explore the Arctic to advance our understanding of the climate and oceanography. 

Our priority investment in secure and trustworthy cyberspace offers a different kind of example of NSF’s contribution to the Nation. This program will help protect the Nation’s critical information technology infrastructure, including the Internet, from a wide 

range of threats. We are educating the next generation 

cybersecurity workforce, helping to transition what has been 

learned in the laboratory into day-to-day practice. 

The budget request also continues NSF’s long history of support 

for the next generation of leaders in other fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics or STEM education. This is 

a part of the Administration’s multiagency effort to increase the 

impact of Federal investments in STEM achievement. 

NSF will support the efforts of almost 340,000 researchers, postdoctoral fellows, teachers, and students. More than ever the future 

prosperity and well-being of Americans depend on sustained investments in science and engineering. NSF promises to continue to be 

central to that effort. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I hope this 

summary has given you an idea of how important the National 

Science Foundation is to our Nation’s progress, and I look forward 

to the dialogue that will follow. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Marrett follows:] 
15 

Dr. Cora Marrett 

Acting Director 

National Science Foundation 

Before the 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

United States House of Representatives 

April 17, 2013 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is my privilege to 

be here with you today to present the National Science Foundation's budget for the 2014 fiscal year. 

For more than six decades the National Science Foundation has had a profound impact on our nation's 

innovation ecosystem by funding transformative research that has pushed forward the frontiers of 

scientific knowledge. As the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of basic research and 

education in all fields of science and engineering, NSF empowers discoveries across a broad spectrum of 

scientific inquiry. 

Each year, NSF awards thousands of grants that engage the talents of researchers, postdoctoral fellows, 

trainees, teachers and students. Collectively, NSF-funded researchers have won more than 200 Nobel 

Prizes for their work in the fields of chemistry, economics, physics and physiology and medicine. 

In an era of fiscal austerity and focus on return on investment for the U.S. taxpayer, the strategic 

investments in NSF's FY 2014 portfolio sustain national economic growth, create new high technology 

jobs, support the transition to a clean energy economy, and train and develop the Nation's globally 

competitive science and engineering (S&E) workforce. NSF's comprehensive commitment to empower 

discoveries helps keep our nation at the very forefront of the world's science-and-engineering enterprise. 

NSF's FY 2014 Budget Request is $7.626 billion, an increase of $592.69 million (8,4 percent) over the 

2012 Enacted level. This request reflects a rigorous prioritization of activities across the Foundation. 

Even as the overall budget grows, the Agency Operations and Award Management account increases only 

$4.89 million (1.6 percent) as administrative costs are kept constrained. Approximately $37 million in 

lower priority education and research programs are terminated, reduced, or consolidated. 

With this budget request, the Administration has conveyed its determination to build on the nation's 

history of success in leading-edge discovery and innovation. 

NSF has identified critical funding priorities that will provide long-term benefits for the nation. We have 

made difficult choices to reduce or eliminate lower priority programs, and seized opportunities to 

leverage resources for maximum impact. 
16 

FY 2014 PRIORITIES 

The investments that form this Budget Request flow from the goals established in the agency's strategic 

plan: Transfonn the Frontiers, Innovate for Society, and Perform as a Model Organization. In FY 2014, 

key NSF investments in all fields of science and engineering strive to create new knowledge, enable 

discovery, address complex societal problems, and promote national prosperity. 

In keeping with NSF's mission of advancing basic research in science, engineering, and education, this 

Request ensures the health of fundamental science and engineering across all disciplines, primarily 

through merit reviewed awards to researchers at colleges and universities throughout the country. There 

are six areas where core research is encouraged to enable scientists to address problems that require 

integration across more than one discipline. These priority investments, which encompass roughly 11 

percent of the FY 2014 Request, focus on areas where progress in basic research is vital to addressing key 

national challenges, such as spurring innovation in manufacturing, improving data storage and analysis 

(e.g., Big Data), securing critical infrastructure, and promoting innovation and economic growth 

generally. Priorities include: 

• Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS) ($300.42 million) will 

transform static systems, processes, and edifices into adaptive, pervasive "smart" systems with 

embedded computational intelligence that can sense, adapt, and react. Through CEMMSS, NSF 

participates in the Administration's Materials Genome Initiative (MOl), the National Robotics 

Initiative (NRI), and the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership. These investments fund research in 

areas of national importance, such as cyber-physical systems and advanced robotics research, 

materials processing and manufacturing, and advanced semiconductor and optical device design. 

These efforts are integral to the Administration's overall emphasis on strengthening advanced 

manufacturing. 

• Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21" Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21) 

($155.47 million) aims to expand investment in the Big DatalNational Data Infrastructure program, a 

joint solicitation with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NSF, as the lead agency, strives to 

coordinate development of new knowledge, tools, practices, and infrastructure that will enable 

breakthrough discoveries in science, engineering, medicine, commerce, education, and national 

security. 

• NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) ($24.85 million) continues to build a national innovation 

ecosystem by improving NSF-funded researchers' access to resources that can assist in bridging the 

gap between discoveries and downstream technological applications, including commercialization of 

new technologies, products, and processes. In FY 2014, NSF will continue investment in Innovation 

Teams, and will expand support for I-Corps Nodes and I-Corps Sites. 

• Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE) 

($63.0 million) investment will continue to strengthen NSF's support of interdisciplinary, potentially 

transformative research by complementing existing efforts with a suite of highly innovative 

Foundation-wide activities and funding opportunities. 

• Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) ($222.79 million) addresses the 

need to develop a sustainable world where human needs are met equitably without harm to the 

environment and without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. SEES uses 

a systems-based approach to understanding, predicting, and reacting to change in the linked natural, 

social, and built environment and addresses challenges in environmental and energy research and 

2 
17 

education. In FY 2014, NSF focuses on enhancing the Water Sustainability and Climate, CyberSEES, Hazards, and Sustainable Chemistry, Engineering and Materials (SusChEM) programs. 

The Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) ($110.25 million) investment aligns NSF's 

cybersecurity investments with the four thrusts outlined in the national cybersecurity strategy, 

Trustworthy Cyberspace: Strategic Plan for the Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development 

Program. SaTC seeks to protect the Nation's information technology infrastructure from a wide 

range of threats that challenge its security, reliability, availability, and overall trustworthiness. 

Additional Priorities and Highlights 

NSF aims to increase the operational efficiency of U.S. activities in the Antarctic ($22.0 million) by 

implementing the recommendations of the U.S. Antarctic Program Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) report, 

More and Better Science in Antarctica through Increased Logistical Effectiveness. Emphases include 

safety and health improvements, investments with positive net present value, and facilities renewal at 

McMurdo and Palmer stations. Additionally, NSF aims to plan and execute more effective 

observational approaches to the Antarctic science community, as outlined in the 2011 National 

Research Council report, Future Science Opportunities in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. 

• In FY 2014, NSF introduces three activities to improve program effectiveness and efficiency by: 

Ensuring Public Access ($2.50 million) to NSF research. This initiative reflects the 

Administration and NSF priority to make government more open and accessible by improving 

public access to NSF-funded research. In FY 2014, NSF establishes a policy framework that will 

build on and refine existing technology to track research products, allow investigators and 

awardees to make their products known and available, and allow the general public, researchers, 

and policy makers to locate and make use of those products. This effort includes establishing a 

publicly-accessible repository for publications, leveraging existing federal infrastructure to the 

maximum extent possible. 

• Establishing an Evaluation Capability ($5.50 million) to improve NSF's ability to inform policy 

decisions and improve the impact of research grant investments. In FY 2014, NSF will build a 

central evaluation expertise and support capability to promote rigor, transparency, and 

independence of evaluations. The centralized capability will coordinate the evaluation of NSFwide activities, expand data collection, and ensure that the results of evaluation are used to 

improve NSF programs. 

• Improving the operational execution of the Merit Review Process ($4.09 million), an essential 

step to address the extraordinary pressures the Foundation faces due to a growing number of 

proposals and intense competition for NSF funding. The FY 2014 Request will support a multiyear effort to improve major aspects of this process, including use of virtual meeting technologies 

for merit review; technological support for the management of reviewers and reviews; increased 

automation of the preliminary processing of proposals; and demand management. 

• Clean Energy ($372.45 million): NSF's clean energy investments include research related to 

sustainability science and engineering, such as the conversion, storage, and distribution of diverse 

power sources (including smart grids), and the science and engineering of energy materials, energy 

use, and energy efficiency. 

• Research at tbe Interface of Biological, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Engineering 

(BioMaPS) ($50.67 million) is a collaboration among the Directorates for Biological Sciences, 

3 
18 

Mathematical and Physical Sciences, and Engineering, that seeks to discover fundamental knowledge 

at the intersections of these established disciplines. This activity will produce critical knowledge 

needed to catalyze the development of new technologies essential to the Nation's prosperity and 

economic competitiveness and will advance emerging areas of the bioeconomy, as described in the 

Administration's National Bioeconomy Blueprint. 

• The Cognitive Science and Neuroscience investment ($13.85 million) supports a focused, crossfoundation activity with three multi-year goals: to advance understanding of adaptation to the everchanging world; to determine the mechanisms underlying decision-making and problem-solving in a 

dynamic environment; and to break the neural code by elucidating how the brain represents the world 

around us. This builds on ongoing NSF-wide support (approximately $70 million per year) for 

fundamental research relevant to cognitive science and neuroscience. NSF's funding in FY 2014 will 

also contribute to the Administration's mUlti-agency research initiative designed to revolutionize 

understanding of the human brain. FY 2014 activities include workshops held to identifY specific 

gaps in our current understanding of these issues and intractable technology problems that prevent 

scientific breakthroughs. These will allow development of a framework for future efforts in the 

Administration's initiative. 

• The Faculty Early Career Developmeut program (CAREER) ($223.73 million) develops the 

future STEM workforce through support of young faculty who are dedicated to integrating research 

with teaching and learning. In FY 2014, NSF will support approximately 500 new awards. The 

CAREER portfolio includes projects that range across all fields of science and engineering supported 

by the Foundation, including high priority fields such as clean energy, climate change, STEM 

education, and cybersecurity. Within CAREER, NSF will support more fully utilizing the talents of 

individuals in all sectors of the American population by promoting Career-Life Balance, including 

supplemental funding requests to employ research technicians or the equivalent for up to three 

months to sustain research when principal investigators are on family leave. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education 

NSF maintains a strong commitment to advancing science and engineering education at all levels and to 

strengthening the Nation's workforce in STEM. The Administration is proposing a government-wide 

reorganization of STEM education programs to support a cohesive national STEM strategy. As part of 

this reorganization, in FY 2014 NSF presents a comprehensive agency-wide program to address 

undergraduate education and expands its leadership role in graduate education. 

Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate STEM Education (CAUSE) ($123.08 million) is a 

comprehensive agency-wide program for FY 2014 that aims to maximize the impact of NSF's 

considerable ongoing investments in STEM undergraduate education. CAUSE aims to improve 

STEM learning and learning environments; broaden participation in STEM and increase institutional 

capacity; and build the STEM workforce of tomorrow. 

• Funding for the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites and Supplements ($79.18 

million total) is increased $13.19 million over the FY 2012 Enacted. This additional funding will 

support enhanced research experiences for students in their first two years of college, as 

recommended by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) in their 

report, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. 

4 
19 

The National Graduate Research Fellowship program (NGRF) ($325.14 million) builds on and 

expands the longstanding NSF Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRF) to incorporate features 

and opportunities that allow fellows to gain specialized experiences and training in key STEM areas. 

Through this expanded program, an increase of approximately 700 fellows is expected, bringing the 

total estimated number of new fellows awarded in FY 2014 to 2,700. 

• The NSF Research Traineeships (NRT) program ($55.07 million) is the Foundation's investment in 

traineeships that focus on strategically identified research areas, mutually leveraging NSF's 

traineeship and research investments. NRT will build on NSF's previous investments particularly 

the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program - to encourage 

effectual innovation and design of graduate programs to support opportunities within specific 

disciplines. 

MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION 

In FY 2014, NSF requests funding to continue construction of four projects: the Advanced Laser 

Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (AdvLIGO), the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope 

(A TST), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative 

(001). 

Funds are also requested to begin construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST), a 

partnership with the Department of Energy (DOE). LSST was ranked as the number one priority for a 

large ground-based astronomical facility in the National Academies' most recent Decadal Survey of 

Astronomy and Astrophysics (August 2010). 

• Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (AdvLIGO). A planned 

upgrade of the existing Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), AdvLIGO will 

be tcn times more sensitive, powerful enough to approach the ground-based limit of gravitationalwave detection. 

Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST). ATST will enable study of the sun's magnetic 

fields, which is crucial to our understanding of the types of solar variability and activity that affect 

Earth's civil life and may impact its climate. 

Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). LSST will produce an unprecedented wide-field 

astronomical survey of our universe, including the deepest, widest-field sky image ever. The LSST 

survey will change every field of astronomical study, from the inner solar system to the large scale 

structure ofthe uni verse. 

National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). NEON will consist of geographically 

distributed field and lab infrastructure net worked via cybertechnology into an integrated research 

platform for regional to continental scale ecological research. 

Ocean Observatories Initiatives (001). 001 will enable continuous, interactive access to the ocean 

via multiple types of sensors linked by cutting-edge cyberinfrastructure, which will produce neverbefore-seen views of the ocean's depths. 

MODEL ORGANIZATION 

To "Perform as a Model Organization" is an internally focused strategic goal that emphasizes the 

agency's desired outcome of attaining exceUence in aU aspects of its operations. Model Organization 

underpins NSF programmatic activities and encompasses all the agency's management activities. It also 

includes support for the activities of the Office of Inspector General (OlG) and the National Science 

Board (NSB), which are provided in separate appropriations. 
20 

iTRAK 

NSF will continue to modernize its financial management systems through the implementation of iTRAK. 

iTRAK will transition NSF from its legacy financial system to a fully integrated financial management 

solution. In FY 2014, the total request for iTRAK is $2.60 million. 

Promoting Efficient Spending 

Efforts are underway in mUltiple accounts to reduce administrative costs through efficiencies in response 

to the Administration's Promoting Efficient Spending initiative (Executive Order 13589) and Promoting 

Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations (OMB M-12-12). Travel costs across NSF will be held 

at no more than $27.67 million in FY 2014, an amount $5.60 million below FY 2010 levels. This is 

accomplished through strategic efficiencies that achieve savings while preserving the travel necessary for 

mission-critical oversight and management responsibilities. In addition, NSF will also employ strategic 

sourcing of administrative support contracts, specifically for printing and wireless devices. 

PERFORMANCE AND EVALUA nON 

NSF embraces the use of goals to drive performance improvements. In FY 2014, NSF has set ten 

performance goals so that NSF can strategically monitor and oversee progress being made on the 

Foundation's most important activities: priority program investments, research infrastructure investments 

and key management initiatives. NSF's goals are: 

Ensure tbat Key Program Investments are on track: Meet critical targets for several key program 

investments: CEMMSS, CIF21, I-Corps, INSPIRE, SaTC, and SEES. Progress will be monitored 

using a set of common milestones and indicators. 

• Ensure tbat Infrastructure Investments are on track: Ensure program integrity and responsible 

stewardship of major research facilities at varying stages of their lifecycle. This involves construction 

project monitoring, response to advisory reports, and deployment of the first implementation of the 

NSF Public Access system. 

• Use Evidence to Guide Management Decisions: The Foundation will use evidence-based reviews to 

guide management investments. 

• Improve Undergraduate Education: The Foundation will establish an NSF-wide undergraduate 

STEM education program that is evidence-based and evidence-building. 

• Enhance National Graduate Researcb Fellowsbips: NSF will enhance the Graduate Research 

Fellowship program to provide a wider range of career development opportunities. 

• Promote Career-Life Balance Policies and Practices: NSF aims to promote policies and practices 

that support more fully utilizing the talents of individuals in all sectors of the American population, 

principally women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. 

• Foster an Environment of Diversity and Inclusion: The Foundation seeks to foster an environment 

of diversity and inclusion while ensuring compliance with the agency's civil rights programs. 

Modernize Financial System: iTRAK is the Foundation-wide effort to transition NSF from its 

legacy financial support system to a fully integrated financial management shared services solution 10 

ensure continuous improvement and achieve high levels of customer service. 

6 
21 

Make Timely Award Decisions: NSF aims to inform applicants whether their proposals have been 

declined or recommended for funding within 182 days, or six months of deadline, target, or receipt 

date, whichever is later, 

Enable Increased Use of Virtual Merit Review: NSF seeks to incorporate technological 

innovations into the merit review process by expanding the use of virtual merit review panels. 

CUTS, CONSOLIDA nONS, AND SAVINGS 

NSF's FY 2014 Request follows a thorough examination of programs and investments across NSF to 

determine where the potential exists for more innovative investments. In addition to last year's proposals, 

this Request includes six terminations; two reductions; and one consolidation, totaling $36.86 million 

below the FY 2012 Enacted level. 

Nanoscale Science & Engineering Centers (NSECs) (-$18.61 million): six NSEC centers are 

terminated due to center graduations and a transition to the Nanosystems Engineering Research Centers 

(NERCs) program. NSF will continue to support five continuing NSECs in FY 2014. 

Two programs are eliminated within the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS). 

CCAT (formerly the Cerro Chajnantor Atacama Telescope) Design and Development (-$1.50 million 

total) concludes in FY 2013. Future NSF contributions to construction and/or operations will depend on a 

successful proposal to a competed midscale activities program. The International Materials Institutes 

(IMI) (-$1.58 million total) were concluded after an internal evaluation of program achievements found 

that despite the success of individual projects, the collective effort has not made the intended impact. 

Virtual Organizations (-$5.0 million total) has achieved its programmatic goals to support scientific 

research to advance understanding of the effectiveness of virtual organizations and how they can enable 

and enhance science and engineering research and education. The transition to supporting application of 

virtual organizations to science and engineering communities is now underway in multiple programs 

within the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering. 

The Sensors and Sensing Systems (SSS) program (-$3.0 million) is reduced because there are other 

programs both within NSF and at other agencies that principal investigators can apply to for support. The 

program will be refined to have a narrower and more targeted focus. 

University Radio Observatories (UROs) (-$1.80 million) is being superseded scientifically by NSF's 

Atacama Large Millimeterlsubmillimeter Array (ALMA). It is expected that UROs will be eligible to 

compete for future funding in a broader midscale activities program. 

The Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) will shepherd two major realignments to the 

current NSF STEM Education portfolio in order to use existing resources more effectively through a 

streamlined and consolidated approach. The new Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate STEM 

Education (CAUSE) program includes undergraduate programs in EHR as well as Research and Related 

Activities (R&RA) directorates. NSF will take a leadership role in the coordination of government-wide 

graduate STEM education programs while developing national fellowship and traineeship programs. 

As part of NSF's realignment of its STEM Education portfolio, two programs are terminated within the 

Directorate for Geosciences (GEO). The goals of the Geoscience Teacher Training (GEO-Teach) 

(-$2.0 million) program continue to be served through other STEM education initiatives at NSF. The 

Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence (COSEE) (-$3.37 million) is terminated as the 

7 
22 

program has fulfilled its original goals. GEO will tum its attention to new educational initiatives through 

CAUSE. 

Concluding Remarks 

Mr. Chairman, let me close with the words of the scientist and statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An 

investment in knowledge pays the best interest." 

We take for granted such technological marvels as lasers, computers, the Internet, wireless 

communications, weather-observing satellites, advanced medicines, and others. And yet those 

technologies would not exist without the scientific discoveries that made them possible. Those 

discoveries have fostered long-term economic growth, educated the next generation of scientists and 

engineers, and addressed critical national needs. 

NSF-empowered discoveries have returned unimagined dividends to the American people. To keep those 

benefits flowing, we need to constantly replenish the wellspring of new ideas and train new talent while 

serving as good stewards of the public trust. This is the fundamental and continuing mission of NSF. 

The Foundation plays a vital role in ensuring that America remains at the epicenter of the ongoing 

revolution in research and discovery that is driving twenty-first century economies. More than ever, the 

future prosperity and well-being of Americans depend on sustained investments in science and 

engineering, and NSF will continue to be central to that effort. The FY 2014 budget request 

acknowledges the Foundation's pivotal role in ensuring America's future. 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee, I hope that this 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. 

8 
23 

Dr. Cora B. Marrett 

Acting Director 

National Science Foundation 

Photo by Sandy Schaeffer 

Cora B. Marrett is Acting Director of the National Science Foundation. Since January 2009, 

she served as NSF's acting Director, acting Deputy Director, and Senior Advisor, until her 

confirmation as Deputy Director in May 20 II. 

Before January 2009, Marrett was the Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources 

(EHR). In EHR, she led NSF's mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, technology, 

engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels, in both formal and informal 

settings. 

From 1992 to 1996, she served as the first Assistant Director for the Social, Behavioral, and 

Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate. Marrett earned NSF's Distinguished Service Award for 

her groundbreaking leadership of the new directorate. 

From 200 I to 2007, Marrett was the University of Wisconsin System's Senior Vice President 

for Academic Affairs. She also served concurrently as Professor of Sociology at the University 

of Wisconsin-Madison. Before joining the University of Wisconsin, she was the Senior Vice 

Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. 

Marrett holds a Bachelor of Arts from Virginia Union University, a Master of Arts and a 

doctorate from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, all in Sociology. She received an 

honorary doctorate from Wake Forest University in 1996, and was elected a fellow of the 

American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1998 and the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science in 1996. In May 2011, Virginia Union University awarded Marrett 

an honorary degree as a distinguished alumna. 
24 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Dr. Arvizu for five minutes to present his testimony. 

THE HONORABLE DAN ARVIZU, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD 

Dr. ARVIZU. Thank you, Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinski, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today in support of the National Science 

Foundation’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget. I am Dan Arvizu, Chairman 

of the National Science Board and Director and Chief Executive of 

the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and with your concurrence I submit my written record, testimony to the record, please. 

Before I go on with my testimony I would like to comment on the 

recent leadership transition here at the NSF. Dr. Subra Suresh, 

who many of you know, an extraordinary leader, will be missed, 

but I wanted to also acknowledge that Dr. Cora Marrett has more 

than capably managed a very smooth transition and continues the 

strong working relationship both with the Board and the NSF Senior Management. And I have worked closely with Cora now for 

more than nine years, and I believe her experience and dedication 

to the Foundation will serve the Nation well. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 25-member National Science 

Board and the engineering and science and education communities 

that we represent, I would like to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for their longstanding support of the National Science 

Foundation. My colleagues on the Board and I do not take this continued support for granted, and our top priority is to provide the 

strong governance, proper stewardship of this most-important taxpayer investment. 

For over 60 years NSF has seeded our Nation’s innovation ecosystem by funding the transformative research that underpins 

long-term scientific and technological progress. With the support of 

Congress NSF has always focused on funding the best science 

through a rigorous merit-review system and by encouraging scientists and engineers to submit their most innovative proposals. 

Although businesses fund over 60 percent of total R&D in the 

U.S., only five percent of that goes to basic research. Here the Federal Government plays a critical, complementary role accounting 

for more than half of all the basic research in this country. This 

is especially true for knowledge in technology-intensive or KTI industries that produce 1/4 of the U.S. GDP and employ about 20 

million U.S. workers with very high-paying jobs. 

The NSF 2014 budget request reflects a strategic commitment to 

supporting the best basic research, economic growth, job creation 

through innovation, and globally-competitive science and engineering workforce. The Board believes that the priorities in this proposal reflect a clear commitment to investments that strengthen 

our Nation for the long term. 

I would particularly ask for your support for full funding for the 

NSF’s Agency Operation and Award Management Account. I note 

that although the number of proposals received at NSF has increased over 60 percent in the past decade, the Foundation still re-
25 

plies to roughly 78 percent of those within the first 6 months of 

having received them, which exceeds the goals that we have set for 

ourselves. The proposed increase would help NSF process an increasing number of proposals in a way that protects taxpayer dollars while keeping our overhead rate at the very lean six percent 

that Dr. Marrett mentioned. 

I will refer you to more details in my written testimony for more 

of the other things that I would like to say, but I would like to take 

this opportunity to briefly comment on the Fiscal Year 2013 Continuing Resolution. In that bill the bill restricts the NSF on what 

it could fund in political science. Well, NSF and the National 

Science Board will fully will comply with the law, and I would like 

you to understand that that is important to all of us. I would like 

to also raise concerns about how these strictures could undermine 

the Merit Review Process and the progress of science. 

Although we recognize that it is Congress’ responsibility to set 

funding priorities and we are clearly very attentive to that, the 

Board is unanimous and believes very strongly that legislativelyimposing restrictions on a class of research can run significant 

risks in not serving the national interest. The Foundation’s Merit 

Review Policies which are emulated internationally hinge on being 

open to receive the best scientific ideas, having those ideas judged 

by independent experts, and accessed the soundness and the promise of what is proposed and make decisions based on potential scientific and societal value. To cut a whole class of science from consideration could have significant, unanticipated consequences. 

For example, when NSF funded Elinor Ostrom’s work, which I 

know many of you are aware of, on common property, it was not 

expected that her findings would challenge conventional wisdom, 

and her research concluded that common resources is sometimes 

best managed by not regulating them. I think maybe that is something that we all appreciate. Nor was it anticipated that this political scientist would eventually win the Nobel Prize in economics. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, again, thank the Subcommittee for their leadership on science and engineering issues. 

We recognize the fiscal responsibilities confronting the Committee 

and Congress, and we pledge to work closely with the Director to 

set priorities. But even in the time of severe constraints, the Board 

believes that investments in science and technology capabilities, including our S&E workforce, are essential to our Nation’s long-term 

prosperity and security. 

So thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward 

to your questions. That concludes my report. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Arvizu follows:] 
26 

Testimony of 

Dr. Dan E. Arvizn, Chairman 

National Science Board 

Before the Subcommittee on Research 

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

April 17, 2013 

Chairman Bucshon, Ranking Member Lipinksi, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to speak with you today in support of the National Science Foundation's budget 

request for FY 2014. I am Dan Arvizu, Chairman of the National Science Board and Director 

and Chief Executive of the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Before beginning my testimony, I would like to take a moment to comment on the recent 

leadership transition at NSF. Dr. Subra Suresh provided extraordinary vision and leadership 

during his tenure as Director, notably with his engagement and collaboration with the 

international community and his interest in ensuring that NSF -sponsored science results find its 

way more quickly into the marketplace. 

Although Subra will be missed, Dr. Cora Marrett has capably managed a smooth transition and 

continues the strong working relationship between the Board and the NSF senior management 

team. I have worked closely with Cora throughout my time on the Board, and I want to express 

my confidence and admiration for her leadership. As you know, all agencies are facing difficult 

choices. Cora's long experience with and dedication to the Foundation and the collaborative 

relationship she has built with the Board will serve the Foundation and the Nation well during 

this time. 

Introduction 

On behalf of the National Science Board, and the science, engineering, and education 

communities which we represent, I'd like to thank members of the Subcommittee for your 

continuing support of the National Science Foundation. I realize that Members of Congress need 

to balance many national needs and priorities, but I have been heartened that Congress generally, 

and this Committee in particular, have provided long-standing support for the NSF investments 

in basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering. My colleagues on 

1 
27 

the Board and I do not take your continued support for granted, and we consider our role to 

provide strong governance and proper stewardship of these taxpayer dollars our top priority. 

For over 60 years, NSF has seeded our Nation's innovation ecosystem by funding trans formative 

research projects across all fields of science and engineering. The knowledge and understanding 

from this research has served as the bedrock for innovation that has fueled significant economic 

growth, improved the quality of life for our citizens, and strengthened our national security. 

More than any other agency, NSF helps advance the basic research that underpins long-term 

scientific and technological progress. With the support of Congress, NSF has always focused on 

funding the best science through a rigorous merit review system and by encouraging scientists 

and engineers. That's why many other nations are trying to emulate the NSF. Our integration 

with the community is also part of the reason that NSF only has about 6 percent overhead. We 

rely on scientists and engineers to serve on our advisory committees and on review panels. 

Although returns on investments in basic research are unpredictable, and may not be realized for 

decades, this research produces the discoveries that feed into private sector innovations. Over 60 

percent of Research and Development or R&D in the U.S. is funded by the business sector, but 

businesses naturally focus most of their investments on development or applied research, with 

only about 5 percent going towards basic research. Here the Federal Government plays a 

critical, complementary role, accounting for more than half of all U.S. basic research funding. 

Within the U.S. science and engineering enterprise, basic research is the "seed com" for 

technological application, development, and future innovation, creating a transfonnative 

knowledge base upon which the private sector and others can draw. 

Though it provides the majority of our Nation's R&D funding, private sector investment can be 

volatile: following the two most recent recessions R&D investment by businesses has declined. 

Indeed, following the latest recession, total U.S. R&D spending declined in 2009 for only the 

second time since 1953, primarily due to the drop in business R&D. Businesses also shifted their 

investments away from early stage, higher-risk research. This underscores the vital importance 

of strong, sustained, and predictable Federal support for R&D, particularly the basic research that 

the private sector is unlikely to fund. 

Within the business sector, knowledge- and technology-intensive--or KTI-industries are 

particularly important. Globally, these industries produce about 30 percent of world GDP. In 

the U.S., commercial KTI industries comprise one quarter of U.S. GDP and fund three quarters 

of US business R&D. They employ about 20 million U.S. workers in high paying jobs, and KTI 

industries report a higher rate of innovation compared to other industries. Although the U.S. is 

the world leader in share of global value added output, our share is declining as global 

competition increases. For example, in 1998, China's share of value added output in the hightechnology manufacturing sector was 3 percent; in 2010 it increased to 19 percent. As other 

countries grow their R&D capacity by making strategic investments in areas such as R&D 

2 
28 

infrastructure and higher education, America must not only keep pace, but we must reaffinn our 

commitment to remain the global leader. 

The U.S. science and cngineering (S&E) enterprise - and our Nation's global competitiveness -

rely on the combined health of all its components. When businesses scale back investments 

during economic downturns, if Federal Government support is unpredictable or declines or our 

human capital needs are not met through a robust education system, then the whole enterprise 

suffers with reverberations that stretch well into the future. Our Nation has benefited from the 

foresight ofpolicymakers and the public in recognizing the long-tenn value of basic S&E 

research, and I again thank you for your recognition and support for this key element of our 

Nation's investment portfolio. 

FY 2014 Budget Request 

The National Science Foundation's FY 2014 Budget Request reflects a strategic commitment to 

supporting the best basic research that leads to economic growth, job creation through emerging 

technologies, and a globally competitive science and engineering workforce. The Request totals 

$7.625 billion, an increase of $592.69 million over the FY 2012 enacted levels. It is the result of 

rigorous prioritization of activities across the Foundation, and contains almost $40 million in 

specific cuts, consolidations, and reductions. This request includes support for research in the 

social, behavioral, and economic sciences, which the Board endorses as necessary to fulfill 

NSF's mission to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare, and to secure the national 

defense. The requested increase for the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate is 

$18 million, or 7.1 percent. The Board fully endorses this Request to ensure that basic research 

and solutions to societal issues build upon the best mUltidisciplinary science. 

The agency and Administration priorities in this proposal reflect a clear commitment to 

investments that will strengthen our economy over the long-term. I will point out that the vast 

majority of the proposed increases are in the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, 

which is necessary and appropriate given decreases in private sector R&D and industry'S 

continuing shift toward development. r would particularly highlight investments in "Big Data," 

cyberinfrastructure, cybersecurity, clean energy, and advanced materials and manufacturing as 

programs that I believe will bolster long-term economic growth. 

I will also highlight the Foundation's Agency Operations and Award Management account, also 

known as the AOAM account. This account covers NSF's scientific, professional, and 

administrative workforce; the physical and technological infrastructure necessary for a 

productive, safe and secure work environment; and the essential business operations critical to 

managing NSF's administrative processes and providing high-quality customer service. The 

proposed increase of $3 million, or I percent, would give NSF support to process the 53,000 

proposals we project for FY 2014, up from 48,600 in FY 2012. To sustain the Foundation's 

3 
29 

excellent management of taxpayer dollars, the Board urges full funding for NSF's AOAM 

account. 

For the National Science Board, we are requesting $4.47 million, an increase of $30,000 or 0.7 

percent, which will allow the Board to meet its responsibility to oversee the Foundation's 

performance and fiscal integrity and to work with the Director to ensure that NSF capitalizes on 

the opportunities continually arising from the expanding frontiers of scientific knowledge. The 

Board also works with the agency's Office of the Inspector General to ensure American 

taxpayers receive the best scientific research in the Nation in return for their investments. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Edncation 

Education that ensures a strong future Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 

(STEM) workforce is core to the mission of NSF , and this budget request reflects this priority. 

This budget will enable NSF programs to fund basic research to inform future effective 

curriculum and instructional practices. It will also enable significant efforts to deploy and 

evaluate evidence-based STEM education innovations through the new CAUSE program 

(Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate STEM Education). At this point, the national dialogue 

on STEM education at all levels is focusing on the desire to find and deploy the best evidencebased approaches. NSF research is pivotal to these aspirations. The Board strongly urges 

continued support for research at NSF and for Education and Human Resources at NSF, to 

enable the Foundation to continue and improve upon this linchpin role. 

In the past year, the Board has engaged with the Foundation's efforts to fully integrate its 

education mission across the agency and to ensure that science across the Foundation is used to 

enhance STEM education. All directorates, not just the Directorate for Education and Human 

Resources, are engaged and devoting attention and resources to STEM education in many ways, 

including involving them in cutting edge research fields through Research Experiences for 

Undergraduates (REU) sites, as recommended by PCAST's Engage to Excel report, and 

involving students as assistants and collaborators in almost every research project undertaken. 

At the graduate level, NSF's well-regarded Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFs) continue to 

support the best young minds in the Nation to embark on science careers. The Board is pleased 

that the GRF program was expanded this year to include competitive international travel 

allowances for GRF recipients to undertake research collaborations with scientists abroad. As 

science rapidly globalizes, these new Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide (GROW) will 

ensure that our next generation of scientists is involved, connected and in the lead. The proposed 

new budget will enable NSF tofurther expand and extend its GRFs and other traineeship awards 

to ensure an even stronger future scientific workforce. 

4 
30 

Major Multi-User Facilities 

Two areas in this budget proposal deserve special mention in my testimony because they have 

been the subject of considerable Board time and attention. 

The first is the U.S. Antarctic Program, known as the USAP. The Foundation's responsibilities 

in Antarctica go far beyond its traditional mission of supporting ground-breaking research, and 

the logistical challenges of operating in the extremes of Antarctic cold demand special oversight. 

Last year, the Foundation, in conjunction with the White House, and with the support of the 

Board, undertook a thorough external review of research priorities and Antarctic infrastructure 

and logistics. 

I accompanied Dr. Suresh in November, when he took part in a full committee hearing on the 

resulting "Blue Ribbon Panel" report on Achieving Fiscal and Logistical Efficiency While 

Supporting Sound Science. The Board, through its Committee on Programs and Plans, has 

carefully monitored the progress of both the review and NSF's response. I am pleased to report 

that significant steps toward implementing suggested recommendations have been taken, and that 

the Board has formally endorsed the Foundation's official response to this review. 

This budget request will help the Foundation and the Board continue to seek efficiencies in the 

Antarctic and to pursue creative approaches to meeting USAP infrastructure needs. In addition 

to streamlining operations, the $22 million requested would help NSF plan and execute more 

effective observational approaches to Antarctic science. 

The second area that has commanded special Board attention during the past few years is the 

NSF portfolio of large facilities. The FY 2014 request seeks funding to continue construction of 

four Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects and to begin 

construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST). The requested amount reflects a 

slight increase over last year's MREFC funding level. I would note that predictable funding 

levels in this account are critical to keeping these projects on budget. 

I assure the Subcommittee that the Board conducts careful reviews offaeilities. Although each 

and everyone of these projects has grown out of a lengthy science-driven prioritization process, 

and includes the Foundation's internal review boards, Large Facilities Office, and MREFC Panel 

which scrutinizes plans and budgets every step of the way, approval of these projects ultimately 

comes from the Board. The Board assessed and approved the LSST proposal almost a year ago, 

prior to its inclusion in this budget request. We review each large award that goes to construct or 

operate these facilities, and we spend considerable time evaluating the facilities portfolio as a 

whole. In fact, we have a subcommittee of the Board devoted entirely to assessing and 

reviewing our facilities and the Foundation's governing processes. 

The Board has been responsible for advancing our current policy to recompete management of 

long-lived facilities, and has been working with the Foundation to ensure that NSF's investments 

5 
31 

in facilities are balanced with our mission to advance the progress of science. And the Board is 

not alone in rigorously reviewing these large - but critical - investments. The Director's Office 

has recently completed its own comprehensive review of large research facilities, and has 

identified a number of actions that address specific Inspector General concerns and will help 

NSF improve planning and oversight for large facilities. 

I would be remiss if! did not mention one particularly impressive example of NSF's 

determination to responsibly manage its facilities portfolio. The Astronomy community has 

worked with NSF on a comprehensive review of its existing facilities and scientific priorities. 

This review resulted in recommendations to divest some highly-successful, long-running 

facilities. The Board only felt comfortable including LSST in this year's budget request because 

the Astronomy Division and community have embraced this kind of strategic, responsible 

planning. 

Selected National Science Board Activities 

As part of NSF's policy-setting process and in its role as an advisor to Congress and the 

President on science and engineering issues, the Board identifies important or emerging topics 

for detailed examination. Many of these are identified through our work on the statutorily 

mandated biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report to Congress and the President. 

would like to briefly mention three of our recent and ongoing inquiries. 

Science and Engineering Indicators 

As you know, our Nation's research universities are the best in the world and are vital to the U.S. 

S&E enterprise. Several years ago, the Board identified a new concern about declines in state 

funding for our flagship public research universities. These universities produce a large share of 

our undergraduate and graduate degree holders. Research universities are particularly important 

because they provide students with access to an affordable, quality education and opportunities 

for world-class research experiences. Many states also expect them to produce local and 

regional economic benefits by seeding new startups and providing local businesses access to 

highly skilled graduates. 

The Board's response to these trends was two-fold: First, we included additional reliable, 

policy-neutral data and trends for these universities in the 2012 edition of Science and 

Engineering Indicators. We plan to enhance our coverage of this topic in future editions of 

Indicators as new data become available to provide you and other interested stakeholders with 

the best available information on these vital institutions. 

Second, we explored these trends and their implications further in our 2012 policy companion 

report to Indicators, entitled Diminishing Funding and Rising Expectations: Trends and 

6 
32 

Challenges for Public Research Universities. This report examined the health and 

competitiveness of our flagship public research universities, highlighting the 20 percent decline 

nationally over the past decade in per student state funding and the additional challenges posed 

by rising enrollment and costs. Given that these data are particularly relevant to state-level 

policymakers, in addition to the national data, we provided state-by-state funding and enrollment 

data for the past 20 years. 

Administrative Burdens 

In 2009 Congress requested that the National Academies provide a follow-up report to Rising 

Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future 

that would more closely examine the health and competitiveness of the nation's research 

universities. Among the findings of the 2012 follow-up report, Research Universities and the 

Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation's Prosperity and Security, 

was that "the problem of excessive regulatory burdens ... puts a drag on the efficiency of all 

university research" - potentially costing "billions of dollars over the next decade." The report 

recommended that Federal agencies "reduce or eliminate regulations that increase administrative 

costs, impede research productivity, and deflect creative energy without substantially improving 

the research environment," and that they harmonize regulations and reporting requirements 

across agencies. 

Congress, in response to the NRC report, held hearings last June. Among the challenges noted 

by representatives from the Nation's research universities testifying at the hearing were the 

"increasing numbers and complexity of Federal regulations" that "consume increasing amounts 

of time and money." In October, Representative Mo Brooks, former Chairman of this 

subcommittee, requested that the Government Accountability Office conduct a review of current 

regulations and reporting requirements imposed on research universities. 

The Board shares the concern that some administrative tasks may unnecessarily be consuming 

taxpayer dollars and time that our nation's scientists, engineers, and educators could otherwise 

devote to the federally sponsored research. Many of our members have experienced, over their 

careers, increasing requirements as both researchers and administrators. We are also aware of 

the impact administrative compliance has on NSF's program officers. As a result, the Board 

created a Task Force on Administrative Burdens in December, and charged it with assessing 

current requirements on Federally-supported researchers, and offering recommendations where 

appropriate on relieving the administrative workload. Weare mindful that many requirements 

have been created for proper stewardship, and we hope that this effort, particularly as a 

complement to ongoing initiatives from the Office of Management and Budget, will help make 

the Federal research enterprise more efficient and productive. 

7 
33 

The Task Force will produce a report of its findings and actionable items for reducing 

administrative work associated with Federal awards thus increasing efficiency and time spent on 

research later this year. 

Merit Review 

Another priority for the Board has been oversight of the Foundation's Merit Review Criteria. 

The two Criteria, "Intellectual Merit" and "Broader Impacts" are the backbone of the 

Foundation, shaping the peer review process so that NSF funds the highest quality projects, those 

with the potential to advance, ifnot transform, the frontiers of knowledge and which have the 

potential to advance societal goals broadly. 

As you know, the final FY 13 Continuing Resolution restricted what NSF could fund in political 

science. The NSF and the National Science Board will fully comply with the law, however we 

would like to raise concerns about how these strictures can undermine the merit review process 

and the progress of science. While we understand that it is Congress's responsibility to set 

spending priorities, the Board believes that legislatively imposing restrictions on a class of 

research will not serve the national interest. 

The National Science Board and NSF's merit review policies, which are lauded and emulated 

internationally, recognize that it is crucial to be open to receive the best scientific ideas, to have 

those ideas judged by experts who can assess the soundness and promise of what is proposed, 

and to make decisions based on potential scientific and societal value. To cut whole classes of 

science from consideration can have significant unanticipated consequences. For example, when 

NSF funded Elinor Ostrom's work on common property, it was not anticipated that her findings 

would challenge the conventional wisdom that common property is poorly managed and should 

be regulated or that this Political Scientist would win the Nobel Prize in Economics. 

At the end of2011, building on Congressional direction in the America COMPETES 

Reauthorization Act of 2010 and substantial community input, the NSB Task Force on Merit 

Review delivered its report, NSF's Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions. This report 

reiterated NSB's commitment to the principle that all NSF projects should be of the highest 

quality and have the potential to advance the frontiers of knowledge, and to the concept that, in 

the aggregate, NSF projects should advance societal goals. 

Although the report recommended that the two Merit Review Criteria remain Intellectual Merit 

and Broader Impacts, it attempted to define more clearly the two Criteria to help the NSF 

community better understand each and how they interrelate. During the past year, the 

Foundation developed specific policies based on the NSB guidance, and they were implemented 

on January 14th of this year. 

8 
34 

The Board also has a longstanding policy of requesting that the NSF Director submit an annual 

report on the NSF merit review process. This report gives NSB a long-term perspective on the 

merit-based awards that allow NSF to achieve its unique mission, and we consider it an 

important tool for ensuring the health of the Foundation. I want to share a few key observations 

from the last report, which is based on FY 20 II data. First, as I mentioned before, the number of 

proposals received by NSF has increased over 60 percent in the past decade, and now surpasses 

50,000 per year. Despite this increase, the Foundation still replies to over 70 percent (78 percent 

in FY 2011) of proposals within 6 months of receipt, exceeding our goal. 

But the increased numbers ofproposa\s has caused a persistently declining funding rate. In FY 

2011,22 percent of proposals were funded, and in FY 2012, as detailed in this budget proposal, 

the Foundation estimates that this will fall to 21 percent. In some Divisions it is significantly 

lower. Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act resulted in increased funding 

rates in FY 2009 and 2010, a long-term decline has since resumed. The Board is concerned that 

these declining success rates may discourage promising researchers from bringing high-risk I 

high-reward proposals to NSF or even from pursuing a career in science or engineering. 

Conclusion 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to again thank the Subcommittee Members for your 

continued leadership on science and engineering issues and for your support for NSF. The 

National Science Board recognizes the fiscal realities that you are confronting, and we pledge to 

work closely with the Director to set priorities and make the sometimes difficult decisions 

required to obtain the best return on the taxpayers' investment. 

Even in a time of severe constraints, the Board believes that productive spending in support of 

innovation contributes to the economy and the creation of jobs in the United States. The 

Foundation's long history of expanding the frontiers of knowledge has paid enormous dividends 

over the past several decades. OUf global competitors are increasing their commitments to basic 

research and STEM education, and we believe that preserving the Foundation's role in 

supporting these areas is critical. 

As you weigh competing priorities, the Board hopes that you will keep in mind how investments 

in our national science and technology capabilities - including our S&E workforce - are essential 

to our Nation's long-term prosperity and security. The Board supports the President's FY 2014 

Budget Request for the National Science Foundation because we believe, over the long-term, 

that these investments will lead to economic growth and an ever-improving quality of life for our 

country. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

9 
35 

Dan E. Arvizu 

Director and Chief Executive 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Biography 

Dr. Dan Arvizu has been the Director and Chief Executive of the U.S. Department of Energy's 

(DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) since January 15, 2005. NREL, in 

Golden, Colorado, is the DOE's primary laboratory for energy efficiency and renewable energy 

research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, 

LLC (Alliance). Dr. Arvizu is President of Alliance. 

After more than three decades of professional engagement in the clean energy field, Dr. Arvizu 

has become one of the world's leading experts on renewable energy and sustainable energy. 

He has briefed Congress numerous times and given state-of-technology presentations and 

keynote addresses at dozens of national and international conferences. As NREL's Director, he 

has established and implemented a new institutional strategy to position the lab for higher 

impact and contributions to national and global energy challenges. During his tenure as lab 

director, he has overseen an R&D budget with a contract value of over $2.5B including over 

$500M for new infrastructure improvements. NREL's campus is one of the most sustainable 

energy efficient campuses in the U.S. which includes NREL's Research Support Facility, the 

largest net zero energy building in the world powered by 2.5 MW of solar photovoltaics. 

Presidential Appointments 

In 2004, Dr. Arvizu was appointed by President George W. Bush for a six-year term on the 

National Science Board (NSB) and in 2010 was reappointed by President Barack Obama to a 

second 6-year term. In 2012, Dr. Arvizu was elected by his peers as Chairman of the NSB, 

which is the governing board of the National Science Foundation with an annual budget of 

$7.5B, and the national science policy advisory body to the President and Congress. 

Boards, Panels, and Committees 

Dr. Arvizu serves on a number of boards, panels and advisory committees including: 

Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy Advisory Board 

• American Council on Renewable Energy Advisory Board 

Singapore Energy International Advisory Panel 

• Great Minds in STEM Board of Directors 

Colorado Renewable Energy Authority Board of Directors. 

Professional Experience 

Prior to joining NREL, Dr. Arvizu was the chief technology officer with CH2M HILL Companies, 

Ltd. Before joining CH2M he was an executive with Sandia National Laboratories in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. He started his career and spent four years at the AT&T Bell 

Telephone Laboratories. 

Education 

Dr. Arvizu has a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from New Mexico State 

University and a Master of Science degree and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Stanford 

University. 
36 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you for your testimony. I thank the 

witnesses, both the witnesses for their testimony. 

Reminding Members that Committee rules limit questioning to 5 

minutes. 

The Chair at this point will open the round of questions. I recognize myself for five minutes. 

Dr. Marrett, I fully support the hypothesis-based data-driven research to better understanding traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s, 

epilepsy, autism, and a whole host of other brain-related ailments. 

It is very important research as a medical professional. 

However, I am concerned about the lack of focus and clarity in 

the present BRAIN Initiative, especially as it concerns the NSF. 

How will we ensure there will be a sufficient focus going forward 

and that we are not just fishing around for ideas? 

Dr. MARRETT. Thank you for the question, and in fact, we are 

more than willing to get back with more details because this happens to fit quite well into what was already on the NSF agenda. 

We have been investing in neuro and cognitive science for some 

time, gave a presentation to the Science Board to indicate the directions that we have in mind, and thus, what we intend to do in 

connection with the BRAIN Initiative will follow through on what 

the program of research already has been at NSF. 

So for us it is a wonderful way for being able to articulate, and 

as you know quite well, the idea of being able to address questions 

about Alzheimer’s, autism, those are far into the future. We do not 

have the models, the tools right now to get to that level. The 

amount of fundamental work that is required is something that we 

are investing in. It is not a matter then for us of a fishing expedition. But as I said, we are more than willing to provide you details 

on what the NSF portfolio will be with reference to the BRAIN Initiative. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you, and one of the researchers at 

Purdue University I just met with is doing research on football helmets, which has been on the front page recently as it relates to 

chronic traumatic brain injury funded by the NSF. 

The next question. In your budget you have 372 million being 

spent on clean energy research. This includes research related to 

smart grid, energy use, energy efficiency. How are you working 

with the DOE Office of Science to ensure that we don’t duplicate 

research with our funding efforts? And are you encouraging collaboration between the appropriate offices at NSF and DOE to 

make sure that this doesn’t happen? 

Dr. MARRETT. We work very closely with DOE—with several offices from the Office of Science at DOE—and support of CERN in 

Switzerland with the Office of High Energy Physics. The connections are very deep that we have. We pay a lot of attention to the 

matters of ensuring that there isn’t duplication. And in part, why 

that is not all that difficult is, let me again note, our investments 

at the very fundamental and basic levels will mean that we need 

the connections with other agencies, other places if many of the 

ideas and the results are going to move into the larger sector. So 

DOE is a strong partner in so many of the things that we do including the area of clean energy. 
37 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. Dr. Arvizu, can you talk to us 

a little bit about the role that private industry plays in terms of 

creating and retaining science and engineering jobs versus the 

types of positions funded with Federal dollars? How do we ensure 

the science and engineering workforce continues to grow, perhaps 

better focusing this responsibility on the private sector? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I 

think it is very clear that one of the long-term benefits that you 

get from funding basic research is the societal benefit that ultimately finds its way into service for the public good. 

There is a whole ecosystem of what it takes to get from basic research all the way out to commercial products and hopefully things 

that are making a difference in the way we produce things and consume things. 

There is a, in many respects, a series of barriers that sometimes 

mitigate the quick adoption of technology. So in the case of the 

work that NSF does with I–Corps, for instance, there we are trying 

to help researchers find those pathways which are typically more 

driven by the private sector. Through public private partnerships, 

many kinds of state incubators, university research programs, 

where there actually are mechanisms already in place that the private sector would fund access to venture capital, those kinds of 

things, that help that technology move more quickly. 

And the work, I think, within the government’s role and specifically for the National Science Foundation, is to help facilitate that. 

I think we don’t want to lose track of the idea that the mission objective of NSF is really to do fundamental work, to do basic discovery science. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Lipinski for 

five minutes for questions. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to surprise 

everyone, first of all, by not asking a question on I–Corps right 

now. If you were here this morning, you know I talked about that, 

I talked about it in my opening statement, but let’s go to talking 

about funding for social, behavioral and economic sciences, and of 

course, I have to disclose I do have a Ph.D. in political science and 

at one time had an NSF grant, a very, very small one, when I was 

in grad school. 

But as Dr. Arvizu had mentioned about the amendment in the 

House, well, the amendment, let’s say we did have an amendment 

in the House defunding for political science research, which it 

didn’t wind up going through but then the Senate version that limited the grants to those promoting national security, economic interests. We had the majority leader of the House talk about, you 

know, questioning the funding of social sciences, and Dr. Arvizu, 

you pointed out Elinor Ostrom, political scientist, who got NSF 

funding, received NSF funding, won the Nobel Prize. I could point 

out NSF-funded research by Al Roth and others who did research 

in the kidney exchange matching program that led to over 125 kidney transplants since 2007, research that, you know, directly saved 

lives, and he received the 2012 Nobel Prize in economics for his 

work. 

So there is a lot of social science work that we could talk about 

that does have an impact, a direct impact on people’s lives. So I 
38 

want to give Dr. Marrett the opportunity to talk about the value 

of social science research, why the NSF funds it, and the other 

thing, first I want you to start off by telling us what percentage 

of NSF funding goes into the SBE Directorate. 

So, Dr. Marrett. 

Dr. MARRETT. All right. I will get you the exact percentage, but of the $7 billion budget for NSF, for the social, behavioral, economic, and sciences it is just over $272 million. So this is not the 

large fraction of the support in these fields. 

Now, when I think about the social, behavioral, economic, and 

sciences, let me start with our notion of what is important when 

we think of science. Science, we especially emphasize, has to do 

with using an approach that is systematic, orderly, it is theoretically driven, and it is the findings—there is replicability. So it is 

more in the approach that one takes than the phenomena that 

would be considered. That means that you can apply this approach 

to any number of areas, fields, questions, and that is the way in 

which we say then the social, behavioral, and economic sciences follow the same model that one sees for the physical sciences, for the 

life sciences, for engineering at the National Science Foundation. 

Now, what about the investments? It is possible to talk about the 

particular kinds of projects as we often do, but it is also very important of the link to this other concern we have, and that is attracting people’s interest, attracting young people often—even 

though for the National Science Foundation and for decision makers, we often think about science and engineering being important 

for the innovation in the Nation. But I have said on more than one 

occasion, I can’t think of very many 10-year-olds who will say I 

want to be a scientist or engineer so I can innovate for the Nation. 

No. It is more about the attractiveness of the kinds of things they 

have a chance to explore, and that exploration that can take place, 

we call it the chance for the authentic experiences, the authentic 

experiences can occur through any number of realms, and that is 

where we have discovered that the social behavioral sciences, along 

with, again, the life sciences, physical sciences, become important 

means through which any number of young people, older people as 

well, get to understand something about the way in which processes occur and can question, can understand the dynamics that 

can be at play. 

So that is probably a longer way around to what was a very interesting question about what we have in mind, and that is why 

we remain so committed to the notion of we want to see that the 

best work is done in all fields because of the consequences that can 

be there, yes, for the problems the Nation faces, but also for the 

curiosity that we often have as human beings about the worlds we 

inhabit, the worlds that we create. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, very quickly, I am out of time, thank you, Dr. 

Marrett. I came from an engineering background, had a couple degrees in engineering before I went into political science, but I understand that there are issues. We were just talking about—had 

two bills on the Floor yesterday. One was the Cyber Security Enhancement Act that I did with Mr. McCaul, and one of the important things to look at is, yes, we think about this as a technological 

issue, but one of the biggest issues in this in cyber security is inter-
39 

net hygiene, computer hygiene. That is what people are doing, the 

mistakes people make. Humans are the weakest link in there, and 

that is getting into the social sciences and trying to figure out 

what—how we shore up security when it comes to human beings 

which could unravel the whole, whatever we do on the technological side. 

So with that, I will yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Stockman 

for five minutes. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. I think you are going to find generally on both 

sides of the aisle we support you, and I think what we are trying 

to get at is when we go back to our home districts, I know you had 

a disagreement with some of the CR, but we have to go back, and 

we have to present what you put forth to our constituents. Sometimes when these 10,000 grants, some of these anomalies come up, 

it is a difficult challenge to present and defend, especially in these 

tight budgets. 

My father, I took care of him for eight years with Alzheimer’s 

Disease, and he died. So when the President announced his initiative, I was actually fairly excited until I heard on April 5 on NPR, 

and let me quote you here, Susan Fitzpatrick, who runs the leading 

foundation that finances brain research, it is called the James 

McDowell Foundation. Are you both aware of that? 

And she says, ‘‘[t]o be quite honest, I am befuddled, I was befuddled, I don’t understand what the President is talking about.’’ This 

is the lead person, and so I guess what I am asking you is if this 

goes out, there are 20 million people listening to it, and I go and 

have a town hall meeting, and I am sympathetic to your views, and 

I have to defend what you are doing, and yet we have someone that 

is the lead scientist saying you are doing the wrong thing, I am 

stuck in the middle. I am your messenger. 

I guess what I want to know is—go ahead. I can tell you are 

wanting to go. 

Dr. MARRETT. No. It is exactly why we want the kind of dialogue, 

because you are right, and if we have not been clear enough, you 

keep pushing us for that clarity. I heard that same NPR account 

and thought immediately I was going to turn to my colleague, Dan 

Arvizu, because the President of the McDonnell Foundation was a 

former colleague of his on the National Science Board. 

So I think in that case that was our failure probably to have included the colleague as the developments were unfolding. And 

knowing him I am sure that he would not take the position that 

this is completely unreasonable, but it is a matter of trying to bring 

a number of people to the table. 

Dan? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah, and I would just add to that, you know, one 

thing that I think in terms of how you respond or otherwise communicate to constituents who are anxious to understand who does, 

you know, how are the decisions being made and what process are 

you using, one thing I will say is that the process of going through 

merit-based peer review and trying to understand what things to 

fund and what—how to set priorities is actually evolving as things, 

as we learn more, as we gain more understanding, as we gain more 

insights. 
40 

Everything is changing in a fairly rapid rate. I think there is no 

substitute for having the best minds come together and debate, discuss, otherwise disagree but ultimately come up with a process 

that serves the Nation and the country to move the societal benefits. 

So we are trying to do that, and we are trying to improve. Certainly room for improvement in all the processes we have, but it 

is as Dr. Marrett has said, the gold standard so far. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. But in that NPR story they said it was more of 

a PR stunt. Would you—have you reached out to these folks and 

talked to them about—I mean, that is a pretty big disagreement 

with the President. 

Dr. MARRETT. Yes. As a matter of fact, we are going to send you 

far more details. One of my colleagues sitting here with me, John 

Wingfield, who is the Assistant Director for the Biological Sciences, 

has the lead for the Foundation in articulating, presenting what we 

have in our program and would welcome every opportunity imaginable to be able to communicate that, to convey, because as we 

said, we know we receive funding from the public. We have to be 

able to explain, to listen, to be able to share with that public. So 

we do want to get to you more of those details. 

Mr. STOCKMAN. Yeah. I would actually, if you could write up 

how, you know, how it is decided, the kind of formulation, and how 

you guys go through the process. That would be helpful to us, but— 

and I don’t know if there are some studies we can point out there 

which back in my district I would have a hard time explaining, so 

I would appreciate the formula and the mathematics or however it 

is structured so that I can explain it to my own constituents. 

And with that I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, Dr. Marrett and Dr. Arvizu. 

You know, as a biological sciences major, I spent a lot of time 

doing basic research, and as a physician I spent a lot of time in 

medical school doing research and as a faculty member and a 

former associate dean, have mentored many medical students that 

have gone through the research process. 

So I understand that, you know, part of research is you do experiments. You don’t always know what the expected outcome is 

going to be, and it often is that the biggest breakthroughs are the 

unexpected discoveries. And those clearly have, you know, we can 

go back through our history and look at a lot of those unintended 

discoveries that have really propelled our economy forward and our 

science forward. 

I appreciate the fact that we have to be very conscious of how 

we are spending the taxpayer’s resources. We have to be conscious 

of the debt and the deficit so we do have the resources to invest 

and make strategic investments, but it can’t just be a discussion of 

cutting versus raising revenue. It also has to be a discussion of 

where can we get the best return on our investment, and throughout NSF, the Science Foundation’s history, we see these discoveries, you know. I will quote a simple example. 
41 

You know, in the 1990s the NSF led a multiagency project for 

digital library initiative. You know, there were two young Stanford 

University grad students that participated in this. One, Sergey 

Brin, was funded by an NSF fellowship. I don’t have—history is 

going to tell you what that research led to. It is a company called 

Google that is now worth over $200 billion and employs over 30,000 

individuals. It is transformed how we live. 

You know, there are countless examples of those unexpected discoveries that have spurned innovation and moved us forward. You 

know, we can look at advanced manufacturing. You know, it was 

NSF-funded research that produced one of the first 3D printers. 

You know, I had, recently had the ability to go visit my alma mater 

at the University of California Irvine and visit the engineering department, and it is amazing what they can do now, and the applications of the 3D printing and the advanced manufacturing is really going to propel us forward, both in my profession as a physician 

but across the board. 

Dr. Marrett or Dr. Arvizu, can you give us a few other examples 

of areas that NSF has focused tackling some of these challenges 

for, you know, on the issue of agribusiness, on the issue of, you 

know, honeybees and so forth? 

Dr. MARRETT. The list could be so long I hardly know where to 

start. We actually produce publications around exactly that. There 

is a whole process we have used called traces in which you could 

trace back. Here is a given development and what led to that. So 

you have seen that a lot in what we have shown in the whole area 

of cognitive tutors. That started with just some very fundamental 

work out of cognitive science that continued to be refined, that led 

finally to this whole notion that it is really—there is the accompanied, there are the things that are done financially out of that 

about how you improve the whole tutoring process. 

We have cited time and again another that started with just 

some very basic research out of the conceptual notion of game theory that led to the use of the auctions, auctioning the radio spectrum, a process that has brought now billions of dollars to the U.S. 

Government. 

We have then any number of ways in which it is quite possible 

to have some outcomes you just never anticipated, and as all of the 

examples show, it usually takes time. So these aren’t things that 

happen all of a sudden, that it is a matter usually of continued investment in areas, but there is no shortage of the kinds of examples, and my colleague is ready to offer some others. 

Dr. ARVIZU. I will just give you the short version here. Lots of 

technology that relates to the internet, web browsers, Doppler 

radar, magnetic residence imaging, DNA, fingerprinting, barcodes 

to name a few. There is a host of others. 

Mr. BERA. Well, thank you. We, you know, in order for us to 

maintain this competitive advantage over the rest of the world, we 

are the most innovative country in the history of our planet. We 

have to continue making these investments to make sure we continue to lead the world in innovation, and with that I yield back, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. 

I recognize now the Chairman of the full Committee. 
42 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Chairman Smith. 

Chairman SMITH. I don’t know if it is been covered or not, but 

I would like to go back to a subject that I raised in my opening 

statement, and ask both witnesses if I could for suggestions. Help 

us come up with a way where we can try to discourage the approval of National Science Foundation grants that don’t benefit the 

American people or our economy or our science discoveries or any 

of those things that we would all agree upon. And I actually mentioned it this morning at a full Committee meeting with Dr. 

Holdren, but you have these examples, and I think I have got 50 

of them, but the two or three that I recall right now is the grant 

that was approved to study National Geographic photos of animals 

from 1988 to 2008. I love National Geographic. I love seeing the 

photos of animals, but should that study be conducted at taxpayer 

expense? 

The other one was, I think, the labor force in China in the 16th, 

17th, and 18th centuries. Is there something we can do to make 

sure and maybe it is the approval process, maybe it is expressing 

Congress’ sentiments. What can we do to better the approval process so that the American people will agree that their taxpayer dollars are being spent in a worthwhile way? 

And that is part of it but—and it is not to deny that almost anything can be justified or have scientific value, but when only one 

out of every seven grants are being approved, there ought to be a 

higher standard than the standard that allows proposals like that 

to be approved. And that is not to say they shouldn’t occur. Those 

studies might well should occur, but it should be on somebody 

else’s dime, perhaps, rather than the taxpayers, and I welcome 

your comments, Dr. Marrett. 

Dr. MARRETT. Yes. I think it is a fascinating question, and it is 

one that we certainly wrestle with. I would make a distinction, 

though, between the title of a project and what I think is your 

basic concern. You asked about the benefits, and as I was explaining earlier, the benefits are not always known when that project 

is, in fact, being developed. The title then can be very misleading. 

I like the example we often use of Google. The initial title for 

that activity was BackRub. If we had just been looking at titles I 

have a feeling that there would have been someone saying, what? 

The National Science Foundation is going to fund something called 

BackRub. 

Chairman SMITH. And that is well and good, and I can appreciate 

that, but in these cases I have read the several-hundred-word summary of these projects, and that is almost intellectual dishonesty 

if you are going to study something that you don’t describe in two 

or 300 words. I assume that they meant what they said, but I also 

don’t think you are saying that there aren’t proposals that are approved that shouldn’t be approved, and I realize they are a very 

small percentage. 

And but that is just it. You don’t want them to color the overall 

process, and if there is a rational, reasonable way to try to eliminate some of these proposals from being approved, I assume that 

you would support that, and if so, then, what would—how could the 

process be improved? 
43 

Dr. MARRETT. That is what I said. We can come back to you—— 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. 

Dr. MARRETT. —with suggestions and ideas because it is extremely complicated. In the list of projects that have sometimes 

been cited as having funny titles or a number of other things, you 

will see a number of them are dissertation topics. They were graduate students, and I can just envision that the reviewers were saying, let’s not give up on them. Let’s see what might be developed 

out of that. That is why I am saying it is a complicated process to 

determine, to ensure that we don’t, in many ways, make it difficult 

for the best ideas to evolve. 

The other thing that we are more than willing to do is to have 

the conversations about how the process, as I have said earlier, 

how our whole process works, because it is a process in which we 

make special efforts to try to reach across the best of the experts 

to try to weigh in on what makes sense for all of what is being developed, but we welcome—— 

Chairman SMITH. Good. I am glad you admit we can improve the 

process, and we will follow up on that. 

Dr. Arvizu. 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah, and I will just quickly, just piggyback a little 

bit on what Dr. Marrett has said. You know, right now we have 

two criteria; intellectual merit, broadening participation, and the 

Board conducted a review on those criteria just as recently as last 

year to think through what are all of the implications of that on 

the community broadly. How do we justify that the taxpayer, that 

the U.S. public is getting the best science, the best proposals, 

transformative research, to ensure that there are not built-in biases that we don’t understand. 

And so we are very anxious to continue to improve that process, 

and to the degree there are things that can be done that will help 

remove perhaps those that fall into that category called questionable, certainly are very open and willing to—— 

Chairman SMITH. Mr. Chairman, if you will give me another couple of seconds here. I am a little bit over. 

Would you all agree to add to the guidelines something along the 

lines of that any proposal approved would have to directly benefit 

the American people? 

Dr. ARVIZU. So that—that sounds like a great statement. I 

am—— 

Chairman SMITH. I am thinking about those I have seen that had 

to do with people in China. Not that there is anything wrong with 

that, but I would like—— 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah. 

Chairman SMITH. —to direct that—— 

Dr. ARVIZU. That has more direct benefit. I think the issue and 

the question really is how do you start down a path of limiting or 

otherwise rephrasing that criteria so that it catches the things that 

you want and perhaps eliminates the things that you don’t. In that 

case I think it begins to sound or to us feel like it is compromising 

the integrity of the basic process. 

Chairman SMITH. To say that—let me get this right. To say that 

National Science Foundation proposals paid for by the American 

taxpayer, it compromises to say that it should benefit Americans? 
44 

Dr. ARVIZU. I wouldn’t—certainly not put it that way. I would 

say that if we have criteria that unduly limits the opportunity for 

societal benefit to actually be gained by—— 

Chairman SMITH. But shouldn’t they be able to state what those 

societal benefits are? 

Dr. ARVIZU. We should be able to do that, and we believe that 

the criteria that we have today actually get at that in as robust a 

way as we know how. Certainly open to—— 

Chairman SMITH. And how do you explain all those proposals? 

Dr. ARVIZU. We are certainly not perfect in a lot of respects, but 

I am not in a position where I can talk about the specifics. 

Dr. MARRETT. I was going to ask would you mind—— 

Chairman SMITH. Who am I holding up here, Mr. Chairman? 

Who has questions left besides me? 

Chairman BUCSHON. Ms. Lummis. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. I better—— 

Ms. LUMMIS. And let me yield one of my minutes to you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. I hopefully won’t use 

that. 

Dr. Marrett, did you want to reply? 

Dr. MARRETT. I was simply going to ask would you mind if we— 

you were asking the Science Board to take a look at exactly that 

kind of a question. What would it mean to say that the research, 

that the specific benefits because we already—our funding is to the 

U.S. group of scientists and engineers. 

Chairman SMITH. Yeah. 

Dr. MARRETT. So we don’t fund the international, and it is always the assumption that the benefits accrue to the U.S. population, but how one would try to formulate that more sharply I 

think my colleague from the Board is more than willing to say—— 

Chairman SMITH. So you are open to new—— 

Dr. MARRETT. —the Board can take that up. 

Chairman SMITH. —guidelines. You are open to new guidelines? 

Dr. ARVIZU. We are open certainly to continue to evaluate if 

those guidelines serve the national interest, and I would certainly 

be open to—— 

Chairman SMITH. The guidelines don’t even say national interest, 

do they? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yes. I think the Organic Act that formulated the 

Foundation says in something about the national interest, I believe, and prosperity. 

Chairman SMITH. Well, I haven’t seen in all the write-ups I have 

read of these suspect proposals, I have never seen any reference to 

the national interest. 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah. The guidelines that we use, I think that the 

Foundation uses, the two that I mentioned earlier, intellectual 

merit and broadening participation—— 

Chairman SMITH. It might be good if those who write the proposals mention that. I would recommend that anyway. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time, Ms. Lummis, as well. 

Chairman BUCSHON. I now yield to Ms. Lummis for her questions. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
45 

First, Dr. Marrett, just to give you a head’s up, my first question 

is about Clean Energy Initiative, second is about supercomputing, 

and the third is for Dr. Arvizu about recommendations on regulations that increase administrative costs at research institutes, research universities. Okay. So, Dr. Marrett first. Does any of the $372 million requested for Clean Energy Initiatives go to the U.S. Global Change Research Program? Do you 

know? And if so, how much? 

Dr. MARRETT. I can’t give you the exact figures, but as you can 

tell from the budget the U.S. Global Change Research Program is 

what we call a crosscut in that it is organized through the National 

Science and Technology Council out of the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. So, that means that things are reported in a 

particular way for that program. 

For the Clean Energy Initiative, that is a slightly different formulation that asks agencies what they are actually undertaking 

with reference to the clean energy. You wanted to know the 

amount that we funding in the Global Change Research Program. 

The request for ’14 is $326 million, and that program is to be a 

comprehensive research program, but I think your other question 

is a link between that and the Clean Energy, and if my colleagues 

here don’t have the answer for me right now, they will have it in 

a short time. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And I appreciate that. I know that is a very specific 

question, so if you could follow up with my office on the answer to 

that question, you know you are your convenience. At your earliest 

convenience. That would be great, Dr. Marrett. 

Now, turning to supercomputing, what portion of your budget 

deals with supercomputing or maybe I should put it this way. What 

is the budget for supercomputing? 

Dr. MARRETT. Probably the easiest way to describe that is the 

budget for what is now the Division for Advanced Cyber Infrastructure. Now, that includes—but I would have to modify that a bit because that is not just about supercomputing, that especially moving 

in recent years to try to ensure that the information infrastructure 

is going to be what is available and useful for all scientists and engineers. Supercomputing had—some of what was developing was 

for the very high-end user, and we had other than high-end users, 

but, again, the exact budget they will give me momentarily. 

Ms. LUMMIS. And I appreciate that because I know I am asking 

really specific questions. 

Dr. Arvizu, question for you. I note that there was about a year 

ago a report called Research Universities and the Future of America, and it had in it ten recommendations, one of which, recommendation seven, reads as follows: ‘‘[r]educe or eliminate regulations that increase administrative costs, impede research productivity, and deflect creative energy without substantially improving 

the research environment.’’ 

Can you describe the taskforce work, the taskforce on administrative burdens, and what it is found with respect to unnecessary 

burdens on research universities? 

Dr. ARVIZU. Thank you, Congresswoman Lummis, for that question. That is a topic of great interest to us at the Board, and so 

we have put together a task force that will focus specifically on try-
46 

ing to understand that which you refer to is our Administrative 

Burden Task Force. The findings to date are still very, very preliminary. In other words, we have just started the investigations, 

we have held already some workshops. We will hold more. There 

are a number of Board members who are very active in the community and are very anxious and interested to get at that, but we will 

give you a full report on the findings of that taskforce as soon as 

they come available. Right now it is still in the early stages. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Great, and Mr. Chairman, for all three of these 

questions, which I know were specific, I would be really grateful if 

you would sort of flag that Congressman Lummis is interested in 

this, and it would be just really terrific if you would follow up with 

me certainly when your findings become more solidified rather 

than preliminary and—because I have a tendency to jump the gun 

a little bit, and I want to make sure you have time to be really confident in your recommendations. 

And, you know, Dr. Marrett, same thing. If you need a little 

extra time to get back to my office with these or your staff could, 

that would be just super. 

Dr. MARRETT. I will tell you right now for the Advanced 

Cyberinfrastructure Division that I was describing, the budget is 

$221 million, and I only wanted to give that to you now because 

I failed earlier to thank you for being present at the Wyoming 

supercomputer opening. Thank you. 

Ms. LUMMIS. Well, we are very excited about it as you can well 

imagine. I just can’t even contemplate the number of computations 

that those computers are capable of making every nanosecond, and 

the fact that atmospheric research is so important, we are truly excited and committed as a university conglomerate, all of the universities involved in academic research just think that this is an absolutely terrific thing. And we really want to thank the NSF for recognizing the importance of supercomputing and scientific research, 

particularly atmospheric research. 

And when I was my state treasurer, I was on the very, very, 

frontend of helping fund that center and have toured the Boulder 

Mother Ship for NCAR, and it is really, really a wonder, an American accomplishment. So kudos to you all. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. We are going to go into a second line of questioning, and you are in luck because there is only 

a few of us left. 

And I yield five minutes to myself. 

Dr. Marrett, we had a hearing, as you probably know, on open 

access issues to publically-funded scientific research data, and I see 

in your NSF budget you have 2.5 million dedicated towards ensuring public access. That is actually a small amount, but there are 

some significant policy implications with that, I think. 

What specifically do you hope to accomplish with this funding, and is $2.5 million enough to accomplish your goals, and then I will 

have a follow up. 

Dr. MARRETT. Well, thank you. Obviously, $2.5 million is not 

enough to ensure public access to the publications that NSF supports and to the data. That is really there for the planning that we 

must undertake because that is—we have the question of what can 
47 

we, in fact, achieve, and we are starting on the publication side. 

But another reason why there isn’t a fully-flushed out proposal yet 

or plan yet is that all agencies have been asked by the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy to develop a plan. 

So it would be premature to come in at this point with the full 

details when we are working on the plan for what we will have to 

submit. We will be developing more, and again, we will be open to 

giving you the information as it evolves. 

Chairman BUCSHON. So the funding is specifically just in the— 

for the planning stages of—— 

Dr. MARRETT. That is right. 

Chairman BUCSHON. —that. That is great, because I think, you 

know, as a result of our hearing we found out that—I think it is 

important if the taxpayers are funding research projects, I think 

for the taxpayers and the American people to have access to not 

only the results but now because everything is on computers, the 

actual data that generated the results so that we can have the ability to duplicate scientific studies and get similar results, which has 

been a controversial thing for a long time. And part of that has 

been, I think, is because people haven’t had the access to the full 

data set that has been used by the researcher in the first place. 

And so the follow up was probably inaccurate, and we saw that— 

we see that a lot in my medical profession of cardiac surgery where 

there have been multiple studies on all kinds of things that seem 

to contradict each other, but when actually you get into the weeds, 

they really are very similar or there was a missing piece of information that the follow-up researcher did not have access to. 

So thank you for that answer, and I don’t have any other questions. 

I will now yield to Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to 

Chairman, what Chairman Smith was discussing. I just wanted 

to—maybe it is because I was the author of the NSF Reauthorization Bill last time, but I just wanted to bring up something that 

we put in there, it is Section 526 of the final bill, the America 

COMPETES Reauthorization, the Broader Impacts Review Criterion. 

And let me just read this here so everyone is aware of this, and 

we have this on the record. If you look there, under goals, ‘‘The 

Foundation shall apply a broader impacts review criterion to 

achieve the following goals.’’ 

So these are for anyone who is submitting a proposal is supposed 

to discuss how it meets one or more of these criterion. ‘‘One, increase economic competitiveness of the United States, two, development of globally-competitive STEM workforce, three, increase participation of women and under-represented minorities in STEM, 

four, increased partnerships between academia and industry, five, 

improved pre-K through 12 STEM education and teacher development, six, improved undergraduate STEM education, seven, increased public scientific literacy, and eight, increased national security.‘‘ So we have bookend there, increased economic competitiveness and the increased national security there is number eight. 

But so right now those are to be considered when any proposal 

is being reviewed by the NSF. So I just wanted to—I don’t think 
48 

I really had a question. I wanted to make sure that I brought that 

out there that this is already—we codified it for the first time in 

the Reauthorization, which was in the COMPETES Reauthorization back in 2010. 

So I just wanted to have that out there for the record. I don’t 

know. There is no need for a comment, but if Dr. Marrett or Dr. 

Arvizu had anything to add to that, you are welcome to add it. If 

not, I can just move on. 

Dr. MARRETT. I suppose my only comment is since Dr. Arvizu 

had said the Board would be willing to think about the benefits to 

the Nation, what the criteria are already, perhaps they don’t say 

a benefit to the U.S., but that is really what they are directed towards. So that is the way I interpret your comments. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. That is certainly what we intended and put those 

specific categories out there. 

Dr. ARVIZU. Yeah, and I just want to clarify, and thank you for 

reading the sub-bullets on each of those two criteria. I think those 

both found at least in the reviews that we have had to date, been 

sufficiently robust that we couldn’t figure out how to improve on 

them. Certainly willing to listen to suggestions about how to improve them, but the last review went through this process and 

looked at it and said that really achieves the results that we were 

trying to accomplish. 

Still, I am open to the idea that there would be opportunities to 

improve on that, but, again, it is a subject of debate and discussion. 

The Board is made up of 25 members. Each of them have a different perspective on how to approach scientific and intellectual 

merit, and I think to a large degree the value that the Board 

brings is the diversity of opinion, and when they come together and 

they codify this, and that kind of is the latest position that we take. 

Certainly continuous improvement requires that we go back and 

revisit those on occasion. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And I certainly won’t claim that I am perfect and 

we were perfect in putting this together in 2010, but certainly I 

think we certainly gave a lot of consideration to this, and if there 

are suggestions on how this can be improved, I think we should all 

be open to that. 

I think with that I will yield back. 

Chairman BUCSHON. Thank you. I would like to say in closing 

that—thank you for your testimony. It is valuable testimony to the 

Committee. Also thank the other representatives from the National 

Science Foundation who are here today, and there is a whole row 

there and that as the Chairman of the Subcommittee I fully support, obviously, scientific research, and I think that we want to 

make sure that as the Federal Government we are not short-sighted in our role as it comes—as it relates to funding basic science research. We have had a couple of hearings where people from the 

private sector that spend quite a bit of money on research did tell 

us how important the NSF still is and will continue to be when it 

comes to funding basic science research for the future of our country, and thank you, again, for coming. 

I thank the Members of the Committee. The Members of the 

Committee may have additional questions for you, and they will 

ask you to respond to those in writing. The record will remain open 
49 

for two weeks for additional comments and written questions from 

the Members. 

The witnesses are excused, and the hearing is adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
52 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by The Honorable Cora Marrett 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

Hearing on 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 

April 17, 2013 

Dr. Cora Marrett, Director (Acting), National Science Foundation 

Questions for the Record Submitted by 

Larry Bucshon 

National Science Board 

Question 1. What are examples of NSF-related policy issues that you and the board 

currently disagree? Please elaborate. 

Answer: The National Science Board and the Director jOintly pursue the goals and functions of 

the NSF. There are no policy issues on which there is significant disagreement. 

Research Misconduct 

Question 2. The pressure by investigators to obtain research grants will increase, 

especially in this competitive research funding climate. I believe most investigators will 

apply for NSF grants with integrity and also conduct their research in a noble manner. 

However, the number of cases of research misconduct is growing. Do you believe that 

this situation will get worse with time? If yes, what is behind this growth? Please explain. 

Answer: Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Most of the 

research misconduct cases addressed by NSF faU into the category of plagiarism. NSF takes 

seriously all types of research misconduct and takes measures to prevent its occurrence. For 

example. NSF requires that organizations submitting proposals certify that they have a plan to 

provide training in ethical research and verify that the stUdents and post-doctoral associates on 

NSF-funded awards have received the training. Additionally, NSF provides training to its staff 

and outreach to the research community. Selected NSF funding opportunities include ethics 

components on the promotion of ethical research, such as Ethics Education in Science and 

Engineering. Such measures are intended to address the multiple causes of research 

misconduct. 

Clean Energy Research 

Question 3. I am concerned that the emphasis on clean energy research may be at the 

expense of other potentially transformative research. How can we ensure that this will 

not become the case? 

Answer: The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds fundamental potentially transformative 

research proposals from all diSCiplines of science and engineering. These proposals may be 

submitted in response to topical specific solicitations or to any of NSF's fundamental research 

programs. This structure ensures that NSF supports research in areas the scientific community 

considers currently promising. Clean energy research is only one general topic within a broad 

portfolio. The "emphasis" on clean energy research is mainly driven by the unsolicited 

proposals received addressing fundamental science and engineering questions and strong 

interest in the science and engineering research communities in this general topic area. NSF 

Page 1 of 10 
53 

partners with the research community through the peer-review process to ensure that the most 

meritorious, impactful, and potentially transformative research proposals are recommended for 

funding. 

INSPIRE 

Question 4. In your NSF budget, you have $63 Million being devoted to the INSPIRE 

program. Your testimony states that this investment will strengthen "NSF's support of 

interdisciplinary, potentially transfonnative research by complementing existing efforts.n 

Which 'existing efforts' are you specifically targeting? 

Answer: The INSPIRE program comprises proposal opportunities for ideas that are required 

both to be interdisciplinary and to exhibit potentially transformative research (lOR and PTR, 

respectively). It is complementary to existing efforts in that INSPIRE was created to handle 

proposals whose: 

• Scientific advances lie in great part outside the scope of a single program or discipline, such 

that substantial funding support from a single distinct program or discipline is unlikely. 

• lines of research explore bold methodologies that are beyond well-established practices in 

accordance with expected progress in their fields. 

• Evaluation through non-standard merit review processes might reveal prospective 

discoveries hidden at the interfaces of disciplinary boundaries. 

Also, although NSF has specific solicitations for lOR or PTR in selected targeted areas of 

SCience, INSPIRE complements these since it is open to all areas of science supported by NSF 

and there are no favored topics. INSPIRE is an experimental activity that will be assessed over 

the next five years to determine if its various funding 'opportunities have resulted in support for 

proposals that normally would not be submitted to NSF. 

Cognitive Science and Neuroscience 

Question 5. In your NSF Budget request, you have $14 million going to cognitive science 

and neuroscience. It seems a big part of this funding will be going towards workshops to 

identify specific gaps in our current understanding of the brain. Why are you taking this 

approach? Don't you think the National Academy of Sciences should commission a 

study? After all, acting in their capacity as our nation's main scientific advisory body. 

aren't these gaps what they are best tasked to detennine? What alternative approaches 

could be used with this ",oney? How are these proposed workshops going to be 

productive, with consensus being reached on the scientific framework? 

Answer: While some of the enhanced funding will certainly be used productively in 

workshops-which are important starting pOints for scientific collaboration and discussion 

across disciplines and in framing research agendas-most of the funds will not be used for that 

purpose. NSF is committed to making targeted investments in collaborative science and 

innovative technologies to accelerate discovery that will revolutionize our understanding of the 

brain. NSF is uniquely positioned to lead a broad multi-disciplinary effort that brings the 

imagination of scientists and engineers together to advance a comprehensive understanding of 

brain structure and function. Progress in this area holds an almost unlimited potential for 

improving our educational, economic, health, and social Institutions and for enhancing the lives 

of Americans. 

Page 2 of 10 
54 

The proposed cross-foundation activity responds to a number of societal needs and scientifIC 

community challenges. The integration of research in cognitive science and neuroscience 

across scales has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery and innovation, promote 

advances in technology, and contribute to improved U.S. economic competitiveness. 

In FY 2013, the Cognitive Science and Neuroscience Working Group, with representatives from 

six NSF directorates,drafted a Dear Colleague letter (OCl) titled "Accelerating Integrative 

Research in Neuroscience and Cognitive Science (AIR-NCS)," The intent of this DCl is to 

direct researchers interested in integrative neuroscience to use existing funding mechanisms 

(EAGERs, Research Coordination Networks (RCNs), and INSPIRE) to further their scientific 

endeavors. 

In FY 2014, NSF plans to enhance support (+$13.85 million) for an NSF-wide integrative activity 

on neuroscience and cognitive science. Support will continue for the EAGERs, RCNs, and 

INSPIRE, and waJ include research on understanding the brain, including mapping of circuits 

that drive behavior in a variety of organisms. A cross-foundation AIR-NCS solicitation will be 

released that builds on the foundation and themes in the FY 2013 DCL. 

Consolidation offederal STEM education programs 

Question 6. The Administration's FY 2014 budget request includes a proposal to reduce 

or consolidate 114 STEM programs across the federal government. The proposal shifts a 

number of those programs being consolidated to NSF, and NSF is consolidating some of 

its own programs. How were programs evaluated to determine whether or not they 

should be consolidated or cut? Does NSF have the capacity to effectively and efficiently 

run all of the programs that are being brought from other agencies? 

Answer: NSF does not interpret the President's proposed STEM-education reorganization to 

mean that programs from other agencies will be ·shifted" to NSF. Rather, NSF programs will be 

expanded and coordinated within new frameworks and will introduce additional approaches for 

improved impact and efficiencies. The functions of consolidated programs will be reviewed 

jOintly by the lead and collaborating agencies during the implementation planning and transition 

into this new system of delivering STEM education. As appropriate, critical functions will then 

be incorporated into existing or new programs at the lead agencies. Under NSF leadership, 

cross-agency planning has already been underway among the agencies involved in the 

reorganization of programs in the areas of undergraduate education reform and graduate 

fellowships. 

For the internal undergraduate consolidations at NSF, programs based in the Research and 

Related Activities (R&RA) directorates that have a full or partial focus on undergraduate 

education were identified as suitable for inclusion in the broader framework, Catalyzing 

Advances in Undergraduate STEM Education (CAUSE), to bring coherence to NSF's 

undergraduate STEM-education reform investment. The programs brought together under the 

CAUSE framework share common goals such as: improving the quality of undergraduate 

preparation in STEM; increasing the retention of undergraduates in STEM fields and the 

quantity of STEM graduates; and addressing issues of institutional capacity and scale. Key 

findings from past and ongoing evaluations, along with Committee of Visitor recommendations, 

will be carefully considered as CAUSE planning and implementation proceeds. 

Page 3 of10 
55 

The CAUSE program will be managed by NSF's Directorate for Education and Human 

Resources' Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). The scientific staff in DUE includes 

thirty program officers whose expertise span all STEM disciplines as well as research in 

undergraduate STEM education. DUE expertise will be augmented with program expertise from 

NSF's R&RA directorates that oversee programs included in the intemal consolidation, and 

through collaborations with staff in undergraduate programs from other agencies. CAUSE will 

be anchored by the consolidation of three major DUE programs: Transforming Undergtaduate 

STEM Education (TUES), Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based 

Reforms (WIDER), and the STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP). Combining these three 

programs into a single program will enable significant efficiencies in reviewing proposals, project 

oversight, evaluation, and program design and improvement. NSF is confident it has and can 

amass sufficient scientific, education, and administrative capacity to lead this initiative within the 

proposed budget. 

Several programs in the proposed STEM education reorganization are graduate fellowship 

programs at mission agencies. As the lead agency for STEM graduate fellowships under the 

reorganization, NSF has proposed expanding its Graduate Research FeUowship Program to 

include a set of "targeted opportunities' that will enable graduate fellows funded by NSF to 

participate in the mission-specific graduate experiences that would improve their career 

readiness and address national scientific needs. NSF's Division of Graduate Education is 

adequately staffed to design and manage the initial stages of this expansion, and will partner 

with colleagues across government who work together regularly on graduate feUowships. 

Page 4 of 10 
56 

Questions for the Record Submitted by 

Daniel Upinski 

Advanced Manufacturing 

Question 1. Dr. Marrett, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is proposing an increase 

in nearly $50 million in support for advanced manufacturing in fiscal year (FY) 2014. Can 

you describe NSF's contribution to the Administration's efforts in advanced 

manufacturing R&D? Specifically, can you describe NSF's role in and level of 

commitment to the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation? 

Answer: NSF's core scientific and engineering programs have produced many fundamental 

advances that have enabled and continue to enable breakthrough manufacturing technologies, 

many implemented worldwide. Now, core research programs and special initiatives will 

achieve similar results by bringing research communities together to address critical 

manufacturing needs that cross disciplines. The Foundation's Cyber-Enabled Materials, 

Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS) portfolio will spur marketplace innovation, 

leading to high technology jobs and industrial growth in the United states. Many efforts will be 

highly coordinated with our interagency partners to avoid duplication and increase effectiveness 

of NSF funded efforts. 

The Foundation's FY 2014 Request of $159.73 million includes major emphasis areas such as: 

• Research to advance sensor- and model-based smart manufacturing, advanced robotics 

and materials, and nano-manufacturing; 

• Research on Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) will transform static manufacturing systems 

into adaptive. 'smart" systems that can sense and adapt to environmental change; 

• Likewise. the multi-agency National Robotics Initiative (NRI) will help develop robots that 

work beside, interact cooperatively with, or assist people in performing a variety of tasks; 

• In response to the Administration's Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) research will continue 

through NSF's Designing Materials to Revolutionize and Engineer our Future (OMREF) 

activity. Research focuses on the manufacturing aspects of the synergistic use of 

experiment, theory, computation, and data driven research approaches to more rapidly 

discover, process, and deploy useful materials, including bio-inspired materials. 

• Manufacturing enterprise systems, manufactUring and construction machines, and materials 

processing and manufacturing of materials and biomaterials; 

• Advanced semiconductor and optical device design, fabrication and processing, for 

application in biomedical, alternative energy, communications, computing and sensing 

systems; 

• Fundamental research in chemical and materials syntheses and processing, especially at 

the nanoscale underpins and will accelerate developments in advanced manufacturing of 

commodity chemicals and functional materials. 

• The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Signature Initiatives: Sustainable 

Nanomanufacturing and Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond; 

• Capabilities for the 21st century, specifically those associated with complex engineering 

systems design and manufacturing; and 

• A variety of activities aimed at bolstering industry/university interactions, such the 

IndustryfUniversity Cooperative Research Centers (IIUCRC) program. 

Page50f10 
57 

Concerning NSF's contribution to the Administration's efforts in advanced manufacturing R&D, 

and specifically, the Foundation's role in and level of commitment to the National Network for 

Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), NSF has been participating in meetings with the National 

Economic Council (NEC), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and senior leaders 

from various agencies to strengthen interagency coordination and improve efficiency and 

effectiveness of the U.S. Government's advanced manufacturing investments through 

coordinated and collaborative ventures. NSF feels that participation in these efforts Significantly 

increases the impact of our basic research investments in areas cited above while increasing 

the relevance of our research programs. 

NSF's greatest strength is its university-based research community. The pilot institutes planned 

under NNMI offer the opportunity to more tightly integrate NSF basic research activities and our 

STEM educational programs with the more focused and applied research and development 

activities occurring at the institutes. We plan to do this in ways that were recommended in the 

Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) report published by PCAST in July, 2012: Report to 

the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in Advanced Manufacturing. 

Toward that end, NSF's role in the 2012 pilot institute and the additional three planned institutes 

is described below. 

NSF supported the first pilot institute on additive manufacturing managed by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) through a $1.0 million direct investment with the goal of facilitating collaboration, 

enhancing opportunities for technology transition, and coordinating educational activities with 

existing NSF grantees. NSF is an active partner in this multi-agency management team. It is 

noteworthy that the fundamental research in additive manufacturing was supported by NSF in 

the early 1990s. 

NSF will partner with DOD and the Department of Energy (DOE) to support three additional 

institutes (2 DoD, 1 DOE) that were described during the President's State of the Union 

address. NSF plans on investing directly in the two new DOD institutes, and we envision 

supplements to NSF Grantees' research to establish collaborations with institutes, including 

supplements to support studentslpost-docs working with/onsite at the institutes; establishment 

of linkages between institutes and existing NSFIATE programs; as well as potentially placing 

students on site, sharing best practices, curricula development with industry, etc. In addition to 

these DOD and DOE efforts, NSF anticipates working closely with the Department of 

Commerce on additional institutes, if the full NNMI is authorized and funded by Congress. 

Infonnal STEM Education 

2. Dr. Marrett, NSF is proposing a significant cut to the infonnal STEM education 

program (AISL) even as the overall Education and Human Resources budget grows. I 

understand this may be part of the larger Administration STEM overhaul that creates a 

new role for Smithsonian in federal infonnal STEM efforts, but I still have concerns. 

Question: How do you justify this cut in an otherwise growing budget? How will you 

work with the Smithsonian to help build their capacity to support Infonnal STEM 

education and outreach across the nation? How will you work with science centers 

across the country as you refocus the AISL program? Also, I worry this cut could 

diminish NSF's opportunities for branding, which Increases public recognition and 

support for the NSF misSion. Can you comment on that aspect of it too? 

Page 6 of10 
58 

Answer: NSF's unique role in infonnal STEM leaming/engagement is to support research and 

development in order to develop an evidence base around exciting, innovative models for 

infonnal leaming. This is accomplished through collaborations among educators, scientists, and 

other technical professionals, and is supported through multiple NSF programs, inctuding 

Advancing Infonnal STEM Leaming (AISL). The FY 2014 funding level proposed for AISL is to 

ensure its research focus on innovative leaming and engagement strategies amidst the 

increasingly broad set of environments in which STEM leaming occurs outside of school. 

Coordination of NSF programs that fund infonnal STEM-education [primarily AISL plus 

Discovery Research K-12 (DR-K12), Research on Education and Leaming (REAL), Innovative 

TeChnology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST), and Cyberleaming Learning 

Transfonning Education (CTE)] with the public engagement and outreach programs of NSFfunded Research and Related Activities (R&RA) projects will not only achieve resource 

efficiencies but will provide real-time, ongoing test beds for understanding how STEM leaming 

occurs beyond the school environment. 

New "non-traditional" players in infonnal STEM education, such as the business communitY, 

private foundations, civic groups, technology developers, and other out-of-school entities, also 

create new opportunities to leverage resources through strategic collaborations. New social 

models, approaches to scientific research, and emerging technologies, such as citizen science, 

virtual networks, cyber-enabled leaming, and educational gaming, create rich but unexplored 

opportunities to reach broad out-of-school and lifelong leaming communities. 

AISL investments will continue to advance the field by funding innovative projects that further 

understanding of how best to increase the STEM knowledge, practice, infrastructure, and 

professional capacity of people participating in infonnal STEM-Ieaming settings. Those 

interventions can then serve as tested models, with strong evidence bases, for wider 

implementation and use at full scale through partnerships with other entities, such as the 

Smithsonian Institution, and be taken to scale through networks funded by the Department of 

Education. 

Through the Office of Legislative and pubnc Affairs, NSF seeks opportunities to highlight all 

NSF-funded research. Those efforts would not be impacted. 

Consolidation of federal Graduate and Undergraduate STEM Education programs 

3. Dr. Marrett, as part of the broad overhaul of STEM education programs being 

proposed by the Administration, NSF has been designated the lead agency for federally 

supported undergraduate and graduate-level programs, including programs that have 

been managed within their respective mission agencies for years. 

Question 

• At the graduate level, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program is being 

expanded to be a National Graduate Fellowship Program (NGFP). As mission 

agencies phase out their own graduate fellowship programs, how will you ensure that 

the mission-specific needs of those agencies continue to be met under NGFP? What 

interagency infrastructure is in place or will you have to establish to meet this goal? 

• Likewise, how will you address consolidation at the undergraduate level in terms of 

making sure that the misslon-speclfic needs of the agenCies and the research 

communities they support are being met? 

Page 7 of10 
59 

Answer: The President's proposed STEM-education reorganization, which designates NSF as 

the lead federal agency for STEM undergraduate and graduate education, expands and 

coordinates NSF programs within new frameworks that introduce additional approaches to 

achieve improved impact and efficiency. NSF staff will continue to collaborate with colleagues 

from agencies whose undergraduate programs and graduate fellowship programs are being 

realigned to fully understand the specific goals and operational features of those programs, as 

well as the agency assets (e.g. laboratories, facilities, scientists, and instruments) that have 

been available to participants in those programs. As much as possible, NSF will incorporate 

into these realigned programs (Catalyzing Advances in Undergraduate STEM Education or 

CAUSE, National Graduate Research Fellowships, and NSF Research Traineeships) the 

intentions and goals of programs from other agencies, and will be cognizant of how NSF's 

programs can meet the particular educational goals of science mission agencies. NSF staff will 

work collaboratively with other agencies to determine how participants in the NSF programs can 

have appropriate access to facilities and assets of other agencies as part of their preparation for 

the STEM workforce. 

Although pre-planning had been underway, the White House organized a meeting of agencies 

after the release of the FY 2014 Budget to move forward in implementation planning of 

realigned programs, including the National Graduate Research Fellowship Program (NGRF). 

As described in the FY 2014 Budget, the NGRF design will include opportunities for fellows to 

obtain the technical and professional development specified by the mission agencies. In 

addition, NGRF administration will include mechanisms for mission agencies to be involved in 

selecting fellows in general, and, more specifically, for participation in specialized technical and 

professional development relevant to their agencies. The Interagency Working Group on STEM 

Graduate Fellowships and the NSTC Committee on SCience, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics Education (CoSTEM) are two interagency groups that provide infrastructure to 

help ensure the mission-specific needs of agencies are met. Meetings between NSF and 

individual agencies are underway to address considerations specific to each agency. 

NSF's new CAUSE program is a natural evolution and consolidation of the Foundation's 

ongoing efforts to couple STEM disciplinary expertise with education-research expertise to 

better understand and improve undergraduate STEM leaming and persistence of stUdents from 

all groups and to support STEM workforce development. Developing the framework for CAUSE 

will be informed by input from others who have been managing undergraduate programs in their 

respective mission agencies. Conversations with those agencies are underway and will 

continue. 

OMS hosted a meeting with representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and AtmospheriC 

Administration, the National Institutes of Health. and the Department of Defense to initiate 

conversations about goals, priorities. and ways to leverage each others assets to support the 

implementation of the STEM reorganization, including in the area of undergraduate education. 

NSF staff have initiated subsequent meetings with USDA and the Department of Energy and will 

soon host a gathering of all federal agencies that have investments in undergraduate education. 

In addition. we will continue to engage with agencies one on one. Our conversations build upon 

and are guided by the extensive collaborative work that has been underway for several years 

through CoSTEM to leverage our collective expertise and assets to improve undergraduate 

STEM education. 

Page 8 of 10 
60 

Astronomy Portfolio Review 

4. Dr. Marrett, last year the Astronomy Division carried out a community-based review of 

its full portfolio of facilities. Taking into consideration limited budgets and new 

telescopes coming online over the next several years, the reviewers recommended that 

NSF take steps to divest a number of older telescopes. I am hearing concerns from the 

community that the proposed schedule for divestment decisions by the end of 2013 may 

be unattainable even as stakeholders work together to develop new sources of funding 

to keep some of these telescopes operational. 

Question: What would be the consequences of granting additional time for potential 

consortia to develop more fully? 

Answer: NSF has stated publicly that decisions regarding divestment paths will need to be 

taken near the end of Calendar Year 2013 in order to realize savings in the FY 2017 budget. 

NSF also has stated publicly that this does not require fuDy formed consortia and Signed 

Memoranda of Understanding by the end of 2013, but does require significant evidence of likely 

commitment levels beyond e-mail expressions of interest. Deferring divestment decisions will 

carry the realization of savings out to time frames beyond FY 2017. 

Depending on the amount of delay, this most likely will result in one or more of the following: 

(1) reduction of individual investigator funding rates to less than 10 percent, or complete 

cancellation of individual investigator programs in some years beginning in FY 2015-2016, 

depending on which budget scenarios are realized for MPS/AST: 

(2) delay of the Mid-Scale Innovations Program that was the number two priority for large 

ground-based projects in the 2010 decadal survey and is included in the NSF FY 2014 

Budget Request to Congress; 

(3) inability to commit to operations of the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) 

beginning in FY 2015; 

(4) deferral of the construction start of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, also in the 

FY 2014 Budget Request, because of a lack of projected funding avaifable for operations, 

which begin in 2018-2019. 

Question: Can you tell us where things stand with respect to considering and 

implementing the Portfolio Review recommendations, including any schedule for 

management deCisions on these facUities? 

Answer: NSF has separated two telescopes, the Green Bank Telescope and the Very Long 

Baseline Array. from the primary management competition for the National Radio Astronomy 

Observatory (NRAO). in order to provide maximum flexibility for the development of funding 

partnerships. NSF is preparing solicitations for competition of the management of the National 

Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) and of NRAO that describe the scope of those 

observatories beyond 2015. NSF has asked its observatory management organizations to 

solicit expressions of interest from potential partners, which in some cases have led to direct 

discussions between NSF and the possible partners or consortia. Some of these potential 

partners are universily-based, and some are other federal agencies. NSF continues to hold to 

its schedule of making divestment decisions by the end of 2013. 

Question: Finally. how will you seek community input on the implementation of the 

Portfolio Review? 

Page90f10 
61 

Answer: The Portfolio Review was an inherently community-based process, with a broadly 

representative committee of community astronomers that sOlicited input from individual 

astronomers and from representatives of all the national astronomy facUities. Furthermore, the 

Portfolio Review instructions required them to accept the science and program priorities set by 

the National Academy decadal surveys, which were based on extensive community input and 

discussion. The results of the Portfolio Review, and the NSF plans as they develop, have been 

presented in multiple town hall meetings of the American Astronomical Society, to multiple 

standing National Academy advisory committees, to the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory 

Committee (AAAC, chartered by Congress), to a meeting of the country's astronomy 

department chairs, and via a web-based presentation to the entire community; in all these 

forums, ample opportunity was given to ask questions. Discussions regarding implementation 

have been held with the managing organizations of the national facilities as wen as with 

representatives oftenant organizations that operate on NSF observatory sites. 

Page 10 of 10 
62 

Responses by The Honorable Dan Arvizu 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

THE HONORABLE LARRY BUCSHON (R-ID) 

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2014 

Wednesday, April 17,2013 

I. What are examples of NSF-related policy issues that you and the board currently disagree? 

Please elaborate. 

There are no outstanding policy disagreements between the Chairman and the National 

Science Board (Board or NSB). The NSB consists of 24 highly accomplished, independent 

members plus the NSF Director, all of whom are dedicated to providing their best possible 

guidance regarding NSF policies, programs, and strategies. They represent the breadth of the 

scientific enterprise: academia, industry, the non-profit sector, and a wide range of science 

and engineering disciplines. As was intended when this large, expert group was designed to 

oversee NSF, we do not all have the same perspective on all matters, so we do not all agree at 

all times. When voting, we are often not unanimous. However, it is my responsibility as 

Board Chairman to ensure that divergent opinions are aired for the good of the Foundation 

and that all important information and perspective are offered and constructively received 

and handled by the Agency. After all discussion, the Board acts as a single entity and, as 

Chairman, I represent that view. 

There are occasional policy disagreements between the Board and the NSF Director, as noted 

in the response to Question 2 below. 

2. I want to be assured that the Board is simply not 'rubber-stamping' the Director's priorities 

and agenda. The point of the NSF Board is to provide independent and honest advice to the 

NSF Director. In your opinion, has this been happening? Could you please comment? 

Per the Foundation's organic act (42 U.S.C., §§ 1861-87), the National Science Foundation 

consists of the National Science Board and the Director. Together we are responsible for the 

functions of NSF. The Board is allowed to delegate certain responsibilities to the Director, 

though we may not abdicate our responsibilities to oversee the development of policy, rules 

and regulations; to authorize ccrtain cxpenditures; and to issue certain publications. The 

Board maintains its independence from NSF by means of its independent budget and staff, 

including independent legal counsel. Further, the Office of the Inspector General that 

oversees the NSF reports directly to the Board, which ensures the independence of that 

Inspector General's office. 

The Board members take our statutory responsibilities seriously. We maintain both careful 

oversight and constructive involvement with the Foundation in order to be as effective in our 

stewardship as possible. We can assure you that NSB is not a "rubber stamp" for NSF 
63 

decisions. As an engaged oversight body, NSB is far more involved and valuable to the 

Foundation than a rubber stamp could be. 

To offer a highly visible example of a disagreement between NSB and NSF: in December 

2010, the Board declined to authorize funds for a Deep Underground Science and 

Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL) that NSF requested. This was a late-stage denial and we 

recognized that our decision would be unwelcome. 

Less visible from outside the Foundation is the fact that it is common for NSB to revise 

NSF's draft resolutions during deliberations. In addition, we often add strictures for tighter 

internal controls and reporting requirements before approving awards. For example, starting 

in 2007, the Board began stressing the importance ofrecompeting management for our large 

scientific facilities and infrastructure investments. We have, since that time, regularly added 

deadlines for recompetition and demanded realistic plans for ensuring recompetition to our 

resolutions before authorizing large investments or renewals. 

The Board strives to guide NSF policies and decisions proactively, so that good guidance is 

in hand and good decisions are made well before final approval points. Done well, this leads 

to few dramatic rejections and better Agency management. For example, during the past 

year NSB asked NSF to bring several topics known to be of scientific interest but not at this 

time institutionalized as programs to NSB for discussion: Neuroscience, Water, and Big 

Data. Preparation for these discussions takes significant staff time and effort, and we 

perceive that there has been some resistance from NSF as a result, but the Board considers it 

vital to hold these conversations so that the Agency will scrutinize these issues early and so 

the Board can assess the Agency's awareness, processes and capabilities related to these 

important topics. 

I was gratified to hear Dr. Marrett specifically mention, during questioning by your 

subcommittee on April 17, 2013, that the Board-NSF Neuroscience discussions had been 

helpful to NSF. As a result of this engagement with the Board on cross-cutting neuroscience 

research, NSF was better prepared when the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative 

Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) initiative was recently announced. 

3. The pressure by investigators to obtain research grants will increase, especially in this 

competitive research funding climate. I believe most investigators will apply for NSF grants 

with integrity and also conduct their research in a noble manner. However, the number of 

cases of research misconduct is growing. Do you believe that this situation will get worse 

with time? If yes, what is behind this growth? Please explain. 

Concern over potential misconduct led Congress, through America COMPETES, to require 

NSF to ensure that each institution that applies for funding to certify that they have a plan in 

place to provide training in responsible and ethical conduct of research for their 

undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. In addition, NSF has gone 

beyond the legislative requirements to implement policies that will lessen misconduct in the 

future. For example, NSF has altered its award conditions so that no award can be made 

unless the institution verifies that its students/postdocs receive such training. NSF has also 
64 

funded and is overseeing the development of a National Professional and Research Ethics 

Portal to provide free resources for scientific integrity training to any interested researcher, 

teacher or institution. NSF also conducts outreach to institutions to help develop and improve 

research integrity activities and has offered several funding opportunities in this sphere. We 

are hopeful that these activities will minimize research misconduct in NSF submissions and 

beyond. 

The Board shares your concern about scientific misconduct and recognizes that intense 

competition may create incentives for increased dishonesty. While we hope that the 

initiatives described above will prevent this problem from getting worse, the Board is keenly 

interested in this issue. We strongly feel that declining integrity would jeopardize the 

research enterprise. Our Office of the Inspector General is beginning to use data analytic 

tools that can identify misconduct. The Board's philosophy is that such tools should be 

deployed in ways that maximize deterrence, coupled with effective training and assistance in 

compliance. 

4. I am concerned that the emphasis on clean energy research may be at the expense of other 

potentially transformative research. How can we ensure that this will not become the case? 

NSF is unique among Federal agencies in that it funds basic research aCrOSS all fields of 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). These investments help create a 

robust and diverse knowledge base that serves as the "seed corn" for future innovations. 

Through its rigorous merit review process, NSF ensures that the research it funds is of the 

highest scientific quality and has the potential to address societal goals. One such goal is 

improving the basic understanding of the fundamental principles and processes at the heart of 

energy research. NSF's basic research investments in this area may lead to transformative 

breakthroughs for clean energy and for other purposes. History has demonstrated that the 

knowledge generated by basic research is frequently generalizable to many fields, often in 

unpredictable ways. 

NSF's strategic focus on clean energy is well integrated within the core, basic research 

programs across the Foundation. Given the constrained budget environment the National 

Science Board and NSF remain especially vigilant in ensuring that the Foundation's overall 

research portfolio continues to be balanced and focused on its basic research mission. Many 

Board members remain active researchers, and they are especially cognizant of the need to 

balance special initiatives with core research programs. 

5. What is the opinion of the National Science Board on the proposed large scale consolidation 

of STEM programs across the federal government? Was the National Science Board 

consulted in any of the decisions regarding reducing or consolidating the NSF STEM 

programs? 

NSB is supportive of the overarching goals ofthis proposed consolidation, namely improving 

the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal STEM education investments. We are also 

supportive of the intent to enable better deployment of evidence-based approaches to 

improving STEM education. Although the Board has not taken an explicit position on the 
65 

proposed cross-agency reorganization, we are fully confident in the Foundation's ability to 

successfully integrate the reassigned elements into its portfolio. 

The Board was briefed on the 2011 Co-STEM "education portfolio" report that preceded the 

consolidation plan and in February 2013 we were infonned of the general types of 

responsibilities that would fall to NSF under the consolidation. The Board has not been 

directly engaged in the plans for the consolidation, which is appropriate given that this is a 

consolidation across agencies and that the Board has oversight responsibilities for only NSF. 

The Board expects to be consulted on the implementation plan as it is developed after the 

release of the final Co-STEM report, and we are looking forward to working with the 

Director, OSTP, Congress, and the other agencies involved to improve STEM education. 

(67) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
68 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BUDGET HEARING INSERTS

Testimony Insert #1 Page 26a 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

April 17,20I3 

An Overview ofthe National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 

NSF is committed to make targeted investments in collaborative science and innovative technologies to 

accelerate discovery that will revolutionize our understanding of the brain. NSF is uniquely positioned to 

foster brain research by bringing together a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines working 

together to reveal the principles underlying memories, thoughts, and complex behaviors. 

Despite major technological advances during recent decades, a comprehensive understanding of how 

thoughts, memories, and actions actually emerge from dynamic activities in the brain remains elusive. 

The BRAIN Initiative extends beyond the mere mapping of the brain and bridges scales that span 

synapses to behavior, linking what is known about single neurons to whole brain function. This initiative 

holds great promise for addressing fundamental neurobiological questions about healthy brain function, 

advancing treatments for brain disorders or traumatic brain injury, and for generating brain-inspired 

"smart" technologies to meet our future needs as a society. 

NSF has taken a strategic approach in developing an overarching framework for the BRAIN Initiative that 

includes community input and a staged implementation plan, in consultation with NnI and DARPA. 

Among the first activities of this effort was a recent NSF-sponsored workshop entitled. "Physical and 

Mathematical Principles of Brain Structure and Function." This well-attended workshop included Nobel 

laureates, physicists, mathematicians. and neurobiologists from around the world, consisting of an openformat designed to foster cross-disciplinary dialogue that articulated important goals for NSF's role in the 

BRAIN Initiative. 

Key goals included: 

Identification of neural siguatures that can predict complex behavior. 

• Development of models that define the computational aspects of functional neural networks. 

Establishment of a theory of brain function. 

• Strategies for unprecedented levels of global data sharing for brain research and education. 

NSF's contributions to the BRAIN Initiative will transform the way science and engineering disciplines 

collaborate to revolutionize our understanding of the human mind. 

Workshop link: htlp:llphvsicsoflivingsystems.orglbrainstructureandfunctionl 
69 

Testimony Insert #2 Page 30a 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

ApriI17,20J3 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 

The FY 2014 Budget Request for the Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate is $272.35 

million, which represents 3.6 percent of the National Science Foundation's FY 2014 Budget Request of 

$7,625.78 million. 
70 

Testimony Insert #3 Page 35a 

Committee on Science, Spaee, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

Aprill7,2013 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 

See NSF's response to Chairman Bucshon on Testimony Insert #1, Page 26a. 
71 

Testimony Insert #4 Page 46a 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

April 17, 2013 

An Overview ofthe National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 20 J 4 

In the FY 2014 Budget.. NSF requests $372.45 million for Clean Energy Initiatives and $326.38 million 

for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). These amounts are separate and there is no 

overlap. 
72 

Æ 

Testimony Insert #S Page 47a 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

Subcommittee on Research 

April 17, 2013 

An Overview of the National Science Foundation Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 

In order to leverage the rapid change in computing and related technologies, coupled with the exponential 

growth and complexity of data, NSF has created a new vision and strategy towards advanced computing 

infrastructure, which will expand NSF's leadership role in the science, engineering, and education 

enterprise. This is outlined in the Cyberinfraso'Ucture for 21st Century Science and Engineering 

Advanced Computing Infrastructure Vision and Strategic Plan: 

http://wlI'w.nst:gov/pubs/20J2Ins02051/I1s02051.pdt: 

NSF has been a leader in Networking and Information Technology Research & Development (NITRO) 

funding for high end computing for four decades. The FY 2014 budget funds the following high end 

computing program activities: 

High-End Computing Infrastructure and Applications (HEC I&Al ($248.44 millionl HEC I&A includes 

increased efforts by the Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering's (CISE) 

Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI) to develop software and algorithms and to support 

operations and maintenance costs for high-end computing systems-Blue Waters Petascale Computing; 

the innovative high performance computing program (Keeneland, Blacklight, FutureGrid, Gordon, 

Kraken, Lonestar, Ranger, Trestles and Stampede); and the eXtreme Digital (XD) services program that 

focuses on advanced distributed open cyberinfrastructure comprised of shared user and management 

services. It also includes the Directorate fur Mathematical and Pbysical Sciences (MPS) and the 

Directorate for Engineering (ENG) investments in new computational methods, algorithms, robust 

software, and other computational tools to support researchers in the mathematical and physical sciences 

and engineering. The CISE investment in computational infrastructure as part of Cyberinfrastructure 

Framework for 21" Century Science, Engineering, and Education (CIF21) is reflected here, as well as the 

development of wireless testbeds that support experimentation with new wireless technology services as 

part of Enhancing Access to the Radio Spectrum (EARS). The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) 

supports EartbCube, a CIF21 investment that sustains cyberinfrastructure for the geosciences. HEC I&A 

also includes invesbnents in innovative partoerships and collaborations between universities and 

industries, including the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program; GEO's support for 

the Climate Simulation Lab activity at the National Center for Abnospheric Research (NCAR) facility; 

and the Directorate for Biological Sciences' (BIO) support for development of pioneering informatics 

tools and resources that have the potential to transform research in biology. 

High-End Computing R&D <HEC R&D> ($113.57 million) Support is provided for CISE 

nanotechnology research, including participation in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. HEC R&D 

also includes support for NSF's investment in Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability, 

focusing on research that will develop the theory and design principles to effectively tackle energy versus 

computatinn and communication tradeoffs and the development of new theory, algorithms, and design 

principles to optimize energy-computational performance in computing and communications systems. 

HEC R&D also includes support for CIF21 to develop new functional capabilities in support of highly 

parallel computing and BIGDATA analytics, as well as research on technical and economic models for 

flexible spectrum access, real-time auctions, and on-demand spectrum services as part of EARS. MPs, 

through the Division of Materials Research, will support research on quantum effects and their use for 

information science, potentially leading to new paradigms for high-end computing.