OPEN SESSION
341st MEETING
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
Arlington, Virginia
February 20-22, 1997
|
| ||
| NSB 97-56 | ||
| APPROVED MINUTES OPEN SESSION 341st MEETING NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD |
||
|
National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia February 20-22, 1997 |
||
| Members Present: | Members Absent: |
| Richard N. Zare, Chairman | |
| Charles E. Hess | F. Albert Cotton |
| Sanford D. Greenberg | Diana Natalicio |
| John E. Hopcroft | |
| Shirley Malcom | |
| Eve L. Menger | |
| Claudia Mitchell-Keman | |
| James L. Powell** | |
| Frank H.T. Rhodes | |
| Ian M. Ross | |
| Robert M. Solow*** | |
| Warren M. Washington | |
| John A. White, Jr. | |
| Neal F. Lane, Director | |
| Consultants* Present: | Consultants* Absent: |
| John A. Armstrong | Mary K. Gaillard |
| M.R.C. Greenwood | |
| Stanley Jaskolski | |
| Vera Rubin | |
| Bob H. Suzuki | |
| Richard Tapia |
| *NSB nominee pending U.S. Senate confirmation. **Attended Friday only. ***Attended Thursday only. Note: The Board, at its 342nd meeting, March 26-28, 1997, approved the Provisional Minutes of the Open Session of the 341st meeting. |
|
The National Science Board convened
in Open Session at 4:20 p.m. on Thursday, February 20, 1997, with
Dr. Richard N. Zare, Chairman, presiding (Agenda NSB-97-1). In accordance
with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting
was open to the public. The Chairman welcomed Board nominee Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Oregon State University, and announced expected attendance for the remainder of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3: Discussion: Mechanisms for Setting Priorities in Science & Engineering The Chairman prefaced the afternoon’s discussion by reminding the audience that the NSF Organic Act charges the NSB to render to the President for submission to the Congress reports on specific individual policy matters related to science and engineering as it determines the need for such reports. He noted that the Board’s guest speakers were invited to assist the Board in the afternoon discussion on priority setting in S&E research, which will build on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues, chaired by Dr. Ross. Members were provided a background paper, NSB 97-26 (Board book, Tab D). The Chairman introduced the guest speakers -- Dr. Edward David, Jr., President of EED, Inc., and former Science Advisor to the President and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, President of Exxon Research and Engineering Company, and Executive Director of Bell Telephone Labs; and Dr. Frank Press, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and President Emeritus of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press has advised four presidents on scientific issues, and made pioneering contributions in several fields (biographical sketches attached at Appendices A and B). Dr. Edward David, Jr. Dr. David advised the NSB to assist the scientific community and the country to a firmer and better footing through the NSF charter, which delineates far broader responsibilities than the Board has undertaken. Statutory responsibilities include improving the research capability of the country, improving education in S&E, and contributing to industrial development and the general welfare. He noted that Federal funders are increasingly asking for value in research, for political payoff as well as first rate science. He argued that the science agenda increasingly is beyond the control of scientists. This trend can be reversed, but not easily. He noted the difficulty of setting priorities across scientific disciplines, especially given the increase in interdisciplinary work. He further observed that societal goals and scientific or technological goals may result in different priorities, and argued that credible priorities require establishment of both goals and "roadmaps" to reach those goals. If the Board would focus on goals, it would be easier to set priorities than if the focus were on the micro, field level. Using SEMATECH as a model of cooperation in goal setting and planning by a coalition for precompetitive research, Dr. David explained that the coalition gained the support of congressional leaders and the Department of Defense, convening study groups and conferences to devise a work plan for precompetitive research, convincing natural competitors within their own industry to join the effort. The federal government provided funding with matching funding by industry. He noted that SEMATECH is not the usual paradigm for fundamental research, but could be with the assistance of the NSB. A good deal of fundamental research is accomplished through consortia already, especially in biomedical and technology areas. If the NSB advocated increased use of some variation of this approach, it might be able to overcome some of the skepticism about viability of peer review, and the self-serving nature of the scientific community. Whether or not these ideas are pursued, he urged the Board to take a leadership position in developing a new paradigm for federal research support. Dr. Frank Press Dr. Press discussed a recently issued report by the National Research Council that analyzed Federal support for research from 1994 through 1997 using a template called the Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) Budget. This template reanalyzes the $70 plus billion Federal R&D budget, eliminating $35 billion that does not fall within the usual definition of R&D. The newly defined FS&T budget includes only support for discovering new knowledge, new ways of doing things, new ways of making things, new processes, and does not include support for such things as procurement, testing, and setting up production lines for new weapons. Dr. Press noted the importance of monitoring the FS&T budget to understand what is happening to federal support for American science and technology. Using the new template, Dr. Press observed that from 1994 to1997 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget increased by 8%, the NSF increased 1.8%, in real dollars, while the FS&T budget to all other agencies declined 10.5%. Overall the FS&T budget declined in real dollars by 5%, impacting primarily the non-biological fields--physical sciences, engineering and social sciences. What is happening across all of the mission agencies is of great consequence to the health of American science and technology. Previously there was no way to monitor this because there was no bottom line in the OMB documents that tracked the FS&T budget, as defined here. Budgets were a byproduct of the 26 committees in Congress which approve the federal science and technology budget in different ways and the more than ten different agencies that rely on FS&T funding. The corporate interest of the U.S. government, to maintain a strong national science and technology capacity is reflected in the new FS&T budget proposed by NRC. Dr. Press suggested that a natural role for the NSF and the NSB would be to act as corporate monitor to track the FS&T budget and comment on its adequacy. Board Discussion The Chairman thanked Drs. David and Press for their comments and opened the meeting for discussion by Board members. Dr. Lane asked for clarification from Dr. David of the definition of a roadmap versus a goal. He also asked Dr. Press for further comment on the distinction between monitoring the sum of the accumulated agency budgets versus allocating a total FS&T budget to agencies for individual activities. Responding, Dr. David explained that a principal value of the roadmap is to determine if the goal is feasible or not. The roadmap includes the formal activity of pulling interested parties together to get their ideas about whether something is a worthwhile, feasible goal or not. In his response, Dr. Press provided an example of the FS&T budget. At the agency level, it may be a wise decision to reduce or eliminate support to a certain field. NSF might find it is in the corporate (national) interest not to diminish the support of science in this area; and it therefore might ask OMB to increment the NSF budget to bolster this area of research. Dr. Press cautioned the Board not to tackle all decreased funding in other agencies, but examine changes across the government and compensate for cuts if it is important to do so. Dr. Lubchenco noted that in her discussions with members of Congress, they indicated that for science to be a priority, individual constituents of congressional representatives must specifically request it. She noted that college students, who may be future policy makers, but who are not convinced in college that science is important, later in life will not support science as a public priority. She argued that scientists have a challenge to reexamine the priorities for science in light of the challenges that face the world in the future, and to acknowledge that the public supports the scientific enterprise on the basis of a social contract that in return for support, science will contribute to society in ways that the public values. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan expressed concern about the idea of individuals other than scientists setting goals and priorities for science. She expressed the opinion that a group should be empowered to help the Board take on this task, one that includes a wide range of views . She applauded Dr. Press’ suggestion that the Board act as corporate monitor for the FS&T budget and her concurrence with Dr. Lubchenco’s focus on the need to support values recognized by the public. Dr. Jaskolski commented on Dr. David's goals and roadmaps discussion and noted that it is one thing to have a set of lofty goals that are difficult to interpret, and quite another to have roadmaps attached to the goals. To bring the appropriate interest groups together to evolve these roadmaps could be a very interesting challenge for the Board to do much more in priority setting. He recounted an effective "roadmap" developed by the Semiconductor Research Corporation. The Corporation acted to support the development of research programs in American universities to produce a pool of talent from which the semiconductor industry could later draw graduates who understood the industry’s major concerns and the relevant areas of technology. Drs. Suzuki and Armstrong stated that the SEMATECH model was not a good approach for setting priorities for research in institutions of higher education. Rather, its value was in providing a mechanism for government to cooperate with industry, and then go to the universities with a very specific project. Dr. Armstrong noted that some of the sponsors in government and industry of certain types of research have concluded that they need less of it. He argued for the need to explore whether the Federal government should undertake to cover funding shortfalls for fields experiencing cuts. He observed further that an important challenge is to identify the mechanism by which an appropriate portfolio and appropriate levels of support can be identified. Dr. Greenwood urged caution in selecting projects, roadmaps or areas where the long term outcome might be a narrowing of the concourse of discussion across disciplines in the service of developing programs or processes which are of economic advantage. Additionally, sensitivity to the changes in existing structural relationships that will result from the increase in competition for the commercially valuable intellectual property associated with discoveries must be considered. She commended Dr. Press for the advances made with the FS&T budget concept. Cautioning against mechanical use of "roadmaps" she noted, nevertheless, that the most entrepreneurial and successful organizations are the ones that can take information, reutilize it, repackage it, reevaluate it, in a constant valuative system. Dr. Powell noted that both Dr. David and Dr. Press are encouraging a broader science policy role for the NSB, and that the roles they suggest, in priority-setting and monitoring, are complementary. Dr. Rhodes asked Dr. David and Dr. Press for comments on the consequences of following through on the suggestions concerning the FS&T budget. There are three possible areas of consequence: (1) possible constraints, positive and negative, on the practice of science and the priorities of science that may come from having a roadmap; (2) credibility with other agencies when serving as arbiters and advisors; and (3) Congress' opinion that they value our interests but do not need assistance in this area. In response to Dr. Rhodes' comments, Dr. David stated that there would be an effect of decreasing the margin for free play in scientific research. He further thought that it might help because not all research is good research. With respect to other agencies, if the work is compelling and their interests are considered and included, the NSF’s efforts to win a funding increment to cover an underfunded field would be acceptable to them. Likewise, if the Foundation can convey to Congress and the Administration a compelling argument for the future that requires public support, but where the benefits are distributed broadly, they could accept it. Further, where the public supports a goal that has landmarks or benchmarks, it could very well be accepted by Congress, the Administration and other interests. Dr. Rubin suggested the NSB focus on introducing small changes, but not major changes, since small changes would be less likely to constrain science. Dr. Kelly suggested the Board identify goals that are easily salable in order to protect basic research, and supported the idea of developing a process for establishing goals in science.. Dr. White agreed with the need to sell science by tying it to public benefits and suggested NSF fund some experiments to establish goals and roadmaps. Dr. Solow, noting Dr. Lubchenco’s comments, suggested that good approach might be to take the existing FS&T budget and identify goals that would induce people to spend money, noting the difficulty of conveying the importance of basic research in some areas of science to societal objectives, e.g., decreasing crime. Dr. Tapia expressed concern about the upcoming generations that need to be drawn into careers in science, mathematics, or engineering. He noted, also, that perhaps science needs to be redefined for scientists, given the changing needs of society. Drs. Malcom and Washington agreed with the concern over scientific career decisions by young people. Dr. Zare reviewed what he considered to be three related problems to resolve before establishing a set of priorities that can be put forward. (1) given the present state of knowledge, what are the gaps and what are the opportunities to fill those gaps. (2) given the present needs of society, what are the relative priorities for filling existing gaps; and (3) given budget constraints which of these gaps should be attempted to be filled in a given time period. Dr. Press agreed that how one sets priorities in the portfolio is dependent on national needs such as health, environment and security, jobs and economic growth. To a certain degree, science and technology can contribute to all of these. He also emphasized that addressing specific needs must occur on a base of support for basic science, since it is impossible to determine where breakthroughs will occur. Dr. Press noted that the Board has a unique role because not only is it a national policy Board, but is the Board of Directors of the NSF, an extremely important science funding organization. With respect to how NSF could help retain young people in science, Dr. Press expressed the opinion that young scientists should be evaluated separately from scientists with established track records. Dr. David suggested that during the upcoming retreat members should discuss how NSB will convey its responsibility in the area of national science policy, identify its concerns, express what it thinks ought to be done, and develop and approach to address these objectives. With respect to concerns about nonscientists setting the agenda for science, Dr. David noted that has been occurring for many years, e.g., President Kennedy announcing an initiative to send a man to the moon and bring him back. Regarding industrial involvement in universities, he explained that industry and university researchers could work together, not that industry representatives run the universities or vice versa. He underscored the need for agreement, not on grand and glorious concepts about what needs to be done to make the world a better place, but on the policymaking or social contract level. Dr. David cautioned the Board not to take an internationalist view, but a national view on goals and roadmaps. Dr. Zare thanked Drs. David and Press for their presentations and engaging discussion about priority setting. The Chairman recessed the meeting at 6:30p.m. |
||
|
* * * * |
||
|
Friday, February 21, 1997 |
||
|
The Board reconvened in open session at 8:25a.m. with Dr. Zare,
Chairman, presiding. AGENDA ITEM 4: Minutes, November 1996 Meeting The Board unanimously APPROVED the Provisional Open Session Minutes of the November 20-22, 1996 meeting (NSB-96-223, Board book, Tab C). AGENDA ITEM 5: Closed Session Agenda Items - March 1997 Meeting The Chairman reviewed the Closed Session Agenda items and presented a resolution to close portions of the March 1997 meeting (NSB-97-2, Board book, Tab D). The Board's action on the proposed resolution and certification is attached to these minutes as Appendix C. AGENDA ITEM 6: Chairman’s Report Before commencing with the Chairman’s report, Dr. Lane, NSF Director, invited the Chairman to the front of the room for a short ceremony. Dr. Rolf Sinclair, Program Director, Physics Division, Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate, presented the Chairman with photographs, a certificate and patch commemorating his December 1996 trip to Antarctica with the members of the Augustine Panel. a. NSB Retreat The Chairman introduced retreat leader, Mr. Paul Shoemaker, Sandia National Laboratory. b. NSB Committees The Chairman announced that new committee assignments took effect on February 20. The list of committee memberships is attached as Appendix D. The Chairman discharged, with thanks, the Ad Hoc Committee on the NSB Public Service Award. The Committee membership was Dr. Natalicio, Chair, and Drs. Malcom and Powell. c. NSB Members The Chairman announced that Dr. Warren Washington is to be honored by a portrait, hung at the National Academy of Sciences in their Gallery of Distinguished African American Scientists and Engineers. Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood was chosen President-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at that organization’s annual meeting in February. d. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) The Chairman called on Dr. Marta Cehelsky, NSB Executive Officer, to report on the final Convocation for the second phase of the jointly sponsored NSB/GUIRR project on Stresses on Research and Education at Colleges and Universities. Dr. Cehelsky reported that the Convocation on February 25-26 would culminate the second phase of a project initiated by Dr. Roland Schmitt for the National Science Board in 1993. Dr. James Duderstadt has remained as Board liaison for the project in a consulting capacity for the second phase. There are 25 campuses participating in the upcoming Convocation (see NSB-96-223, Agenda Item 5d). She noted that Drs. Lane, Malcom, and Armstrong would participate in panel discussions and that Dr. Powell was scheduled to attend the meeting. Dr. Zare stated that the results of the Convocation will be reported to the White House as part of the National Science & Technology Council’s (NSTC) Committee on Fundamental Science (CFS) of the government/university partnership. AGENDA ITEM 7: Director’s Report a. NSF Staff The Director welcomed Dr. Norman L. Fortenberry, who began a 2-year IPA assignment as Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, Education & Human Resources (EHR) Directorate. Dr. Fortenberry previously served as Executive Director, National Consortium for Graduate Degrees for Minorities in Engineering & Science. Dr. Robert Watson, formerly Director, Division of Undergraduate Education, is currently on special assignment with the American University. b. Congress The Director reported that on February 6 the Foundation’s FY 1998 budget was released at a press conference at the NSF. On February 7, the Foundation held a briefing for the science and technology community. The early reaction to the budget was positive, tempered by the realities of a difficult budget environment. A number of members of Congress are speaking out on behalf of the importance of investment in science and technology, and there is a bi-partisan coalition of Senators working in this vein. On February 10 the Director met with Senator Frist to discuss various issues, including math/science education and the Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence (KDI) initiative. On February 11, the Director, representatives from the research and development (R&D) community, senior level Federal officials, and university representatives, participated in a Senate R&D roundtable, sponsored by Senators Frist, Liebermann, Domenici, and Rockefeller, that focused on the role of the Federal government in R&D. On February 13, the Director met with members of the House Science Committee, to discuss the FY 1998 budget. Ms. Lofgren was particularly interested in the KDI initiative. The Director announced upcoming hearings on the Foundation’s FY 1998 budget: March 5, before the Basic Research Subcommittee; mid-March Dr. Norman Augustine will testify on the panel’s Antarctic report; April 10, NSF representatives will testify at the House Appropriations Subcommittee meeting on the FY 1998 budget; and on April 22, NSF and OSTP representatives will testify before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. c. U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation The Director recounted that the Commission, co-chaired by Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, was created by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin at the Vancouver Summit in April 1993. The Commission provides a framework for promoting a partnership between the U.S. and Russia based on the principles of shared commitment to democracy and human rights; a market economy and the rule of law; and international peace and stability. The Science & Technology Committee, one of eight committees, is chaired by Dr. John Gibbons, the President’s Science Advisor, and Vladimir Fortov, Chairman, Russian State Committee for Science and Technologies. Dr. Lane serves as U.S. vice-chair. The Commission met in Washington, DC, during the week of February 3. During the meeting the NSF signed two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). The first MOU is with the relatively new Russian Foundation for Basic Research, NSF's counterpart in Russia, that supports basic research through the process of peer review. The agreement continues cooperation between the Russian Foundation and NSF in support of joint research activity. The second MOU enables NSF to facilitate direct cooperation between its supercomputer centers and counterparts in Russia, by sharing American knowledge and providing advice. Also discussed were NSF's cooperation with Russia on the Lake Baikal drilling project; taxes and custom duties against equipment taken into Russia in connection with cooperative activities; and cooperation between Russia and the U.S. Department of Energy on topics of mutual interest. d. NSF FastLane The Director announced that in December 1996 NSF's FastLane was chosen as the first federal government project to win a National Information Infrastructure Award (NII). NII is a not-for-profit organization formed to encourage progress in the application of technology. The Director explained that FastLane is an electronic system for administering research grants and educational fellowships, as well as other interactive functions, inside and outside the Foundation. AGENDA ITEM 8: Program Approval
Dr. Hopcroft outlined the process for renewal of the Science and Technology Centers: a first round of new centers which would cost approximately $25 million, with subsequent rounds every three years, so that by the year 2006 the program would be at a steady-state cost of approximately $75 million. AGENDA ITEM 9: Director’s Merit Review Report The Director presented the report on the FY 1996 NSF Merit Review System, (NSB-97-13 (Revised), Board book, Tab F), reviewed earlier by the Committee on Audit and Oversight. Dr. Menger asked whether, with the difference in funding rates for new versus more senior investigators, there was a special funding set-aside for young investigators. She noted that many of the best young scientists are discouraged from entering academic positions because of the funding situation. Dr. Lane responded that the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program was strictly limited to young investigators entering the field, but agreed with Dr. Menger's concerns and welcomed further discussion at a future Board meeting on the topic. Dr. White noted the low success rate for programs targeted at young investigators, lower than for the regular competitive grant system. Dr. Lane suggested the possibility of raising the amount of funding available through young investigator programs and CAREER to increase the success rate, but concurred with Dr. White that the highly competitive nature of the programs has a prestige value for young investigators who are successful, and should not be ignored. Dr. Washington noted that during the merit review discussions a bipolar response pattern had been evident, with arguments that more credit should be given to those who have established records of research, while at the same time ensuring that young investigators can be successful. Dr. Rhodes observed that the two problems under consideration, i.e., (1) the career prospect for the young scientists and engineers; and (2) the mechanics by which NSF allocates support, are part of the larger problem of responsible national investment in science and technology, discussed Thursday. Dr. Hess noted that it is not necessarily negative that excellent scientists are entering industry, but only that excellent students are deciding against a career in science. Dr. Bordogna agreed that a better NSF policy is needed to deal with career-related issues. AGENDA ITEM 10: Reports from Committees The Chairman called for Committee reports. a. Audit & Oversight (A&O) Dr. Hess, Chairman, A&O, reported that the Committee received a report from Dr. Bordogna on the proposed common definition of research misconduct that had been developed by the NSTC's Committee on Fundamental Science (CFS). Drs. Lane and Zare are developing NSF's response, and requested the advice of the A&O Committee. The Committee expressed its preference for the NSF definition, with a change in the order of wording to clarify it, but indicated that it could accept the CFS definition if it explicitly included a limitation in scope to apply only to misconduct related to the research record. The Committee also received reports from (1) the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Task Force; (2) the Task Force on Merit Review, which received over 300 replies from the research and education communities on the draft report; and (3) the Director's Annual Report on Merit Review (see Agenda Item 9). During the supervisory session, the Inspector General (IG) introduced Mr. John Hummel, KPMG Peat Marwick partner and senior manager on the OIG’s contract audit of NSF’s financial statements, and there was a general discussion on clean audits, priorities, time limits and costs. The KPMG auditors will make a presentation based upon the audit reports on NSF’s FY 1996 financial statements to the Committee in March. In May the Committee will hold a joint meeting with the Chief Financial Officer, the IG, and the Chief Operating Officer on a schedule of tasks, priorities, and options for completing future financial statements and the IG's audits of those statements. The Chairman noted that although the legislation was well-intended, the costs of the Chief Financial Officer Act are very substantial to federal agencies and there was no budget increment to cover these costs. Task Force on Merit Review Dr. Washington, Chair, stated that the Task Force would make a final report to the A&O Committee at the March meeting. Task Force on Government Performance & Results Act (GPRA) Dr. White, Chairman, reported that the Committee reviewed a report from staff on the progress made to date. b. Committee on Programs & Plans (CPP) Dr. John Hopcroft, Chairman, CPP, reported that in addition to the Science and Technology Centers Program (see Agenda Item 8), the Committee received status reports on the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), Gemini, Greenbank, Arecibo, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, R/V Gould constructions projects and on NSF management and oversight of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the academic research fleet. The Committee also heard a report from the Task Force on Polar Issues. Task Force on Polar Issues Dr. Hess, Chairman, noted that the Task Force had two agenda items, one on the Antarctic and one on the Arctic. He provided an insight into the recommendations of the U. S. Antarctic Program External Review Panel, to be presented to the NSF Director by the end of March. The report will reaffirm the presence of the U.S. in the Antarctica and recommend the need for three stations with the capability of year-round operations and that new, but reduced in size, construction of South Pole Station be undertaken as quickly as possible. The report will recommend that some of the funding for construction come from within the program, and that savings might be achieved in the transfer of operations from military to civilian operation. Finally, McMurdo and Palmer Station should be upgraded as well. Dr. Hess shared a view of his December 1996 trip to the Antarctic through a short video. c. Education & Human Resources (EHR) Dr. Shirley Malcom, Chairman, reported that the Committee heard a series of reports on the program portfolio in the EHR Directorate. In particular, the Committee focused on two of the Human Resources programs related to institutional capacity-building, the Centers of Research Excellence in Science & Technology (CREST) program and the Model Institutions for Excellence (MIE) program. These programs are both focused on the need to integrate research and education in institutions that are primarily focused on teaching. The Committee also received an update from Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director, EHR, on the demographics that the programs were intended to focus on, based on the 1995 document data. The Committee recommends a briefing of the Board regarding the systemic initiatives, focusing on lessons learned. Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Educators Dr. Claudia Mitchell-Kernan, Chairman, reported that there was a broad discussion much enlivened by the presence of new Committee members that centered on Chapter 8 which discusses the social and economic indicators, and an outline of plans for other chapters. The Committee discussed different complementary approaches to the chapter, several of which were unconventional in connection with scientific indicators. There was also discussion on the various merits of case studies in specific areas of science to provide examples of process of discovery and innovation. d. Executive Committee (EC) Dr. Lane emphasized that in the agreement itself the language is quite clear that the funding is dependent on the availability of funds and approval of the NSB. The Director commented on the value of having the opportunity to confer with the Executive Committee on significant policy issues during the FY 1998 budget discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), enabled by scheduling two conference calls. e. Ad Hoc Committee on Board Operations Dr. Hess, Acting Chair, reported that the Committee had continuing discussion on a recommendation that will be made to the Board at the retreat. The purpose of the retreat is to arrive at a new schedule, reducing the number of core meetings. AGENDA ITEM 11: Recognition Awards for Integration of Research The Chairman invited Board members to remain after the Board meeting adjourned to participate in the award ceremony and reception for the RAIRE recipients. AGENDA ITEM 12: Other Business/Adjourn There was no further business and the meeting adjourned at 9:35a.m. |
||
| Susan E. Fannoney Staff Assistant |
||
|
||
|
Appendix C to NSB 97-56 (Limited Distribution) |
|
341th Meeting National Science Board February, 1996 The Chairman presented a list of items to be considered in Closed Session at the March 27-28, 1997 meeting (NSB-97-2). A proposed resolution and a certification from the General Counsel regarding closing these portions of the meeting were also distributed. The Board adopted the proposed resolution as follows: The Board DETERMINED that the following portions of the meeting of the National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for March 27-28, 1997 shall be closed to the public: |
|
| Susan E. Fannoney Staff Assistant |
| Appendix C to NSB 97-56 |
| NSB 97-4 REVISED February 19, 1997 |
NATOINAL SCIENCE BOARD COMMITTEES |
|
| EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE | |
| Dr. Lane, Chairman | |
| Dr. Zare, NSB Chair | Dr. Hess |
| Dr. Natalicio, NSB Vice Chair | Dr. Malcom |
| AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT | |
| Dr. Hess, Chair | Dr. White |
| Dr. Menger | Dr. Jaskolski* |
| Dr. Rhodes | Dr. Kelly* |
| NSB/Staff Fask Force on Government Performance and Result | |
| Dr. White, Chair | Dr. Corell# |
| Dr. Mitchell-Kernan | Dr. Cozzens# |
| Dr. Jaskolski* | |
| Dr. Suzuki* | |
| EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES | |
| Dr. Malcom, Chair | Dr. Powell |
| Dr. Cotton | Dr. Lubchenco* |
| Dr. Greenberg | Dr. Suzuki* |
| Dr. Mitchell-Kernan | Dr. Tapia* |
| EHR Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators-1997 | |
| Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair | Dr. White |
| Dr. Cotton | Dr. Armstrong* |
| Dr. Hopcroft | Dr. Tapia* |
| Dr. Solow | |
| PROGRAMS AND PLANS | |
| Dr. Hopcroft, Chair | Dr. Armstrong* |
| Dr. Ross | Dr. Gaillard* |
| Dr. Solow | Dr. Greenwood* |
| Dr. Washington | Dr. Rubin* |
| CCP Task Force on Polar Issues | |
| Dr. Hess, Chair | Dr. White |
| Dr. Rhodes | Dr. Rubin* |
| Dr. Washington | |
| AD HOC NSB COMMITTEE ON BOARD OPERATIONS | |
| Dr. Natalicio, Chair | Dr. Lane |
| Dr. Cotton | Dr. Suzuki* |
| Dr. Hess | |
| COMMITTEE ON NSB NOMINEES FOR THE CLASS OF 2004 | |
| Dr. Rhodes, Chair | Dr. Malcom |
| Dr. Hopcroft | Dr. Menger |
| AD HOC COMMITTEE ON NSB PUBLIC SERVICE AWARD | |
| Dr. Natalicio, Chair | Dr. Powell |
| Dr. Malcom | |
| AD HOC COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING POLICY ISSUES | |
| Dr. Ross, Chair | Dr. Solow |
| Dr. Menger | Dr. Gaillard* |
| Dr. Powell | |
| AH HOC COMMITTEE ON THE VANNEVAR BUSH AWARD 1997 | |
| Dr. Cotton, Chair | Dr. Solow |
| Dr. Malcom | |
| TASK FORCE ON INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING | |
| Dr. Greenberg, Chair | Dr. Rhodes |
| Dr. Malcom | Dr. Solow |
|
Note: The Board, at its 342nd meeting, March 26-28, 1997, approved
the Provisional Minutes of the Open Session of the 341st meeting. *NSB Nominees pending U.S. Senate confirmation. #NSF Staff |