Title: Open Session 353rd Meeting Date: May 7, 1999 NSB-99-110 OPEN SESSION 353rd MEETING NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia May 6-7, 1999 Members Present: Members Absent: Eamon M. Kelly, Chair Vera Rubin Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair Richard Tapia John A. Armstrong John A. White, Jr Pamela A. Ferguson Mary K. Gaillard Sanford D. Greenberg* M.R.C. Greenwood* Stanley V. Jaskolski Anita K. Jones George M. Langford Jane Lubchenco Eve L. Menger* Joseph A. Miller, Jr. Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan Robert C. Richardson Maxine Savitz Luis Sequeira Robert M. Solow** Bob H. Suzuki Chang-Lin Tien* Warren M. Washington Rita R. Colwell, Director _______________ *Attended Thursday Only **Attended Friday Only At its 354th meeting the Board approved the provisional minutes of the May 6-7, 1999 meeting The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 1:20 p.m., on Thursday, May 6, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, presiding (Agenda NSB 99-76). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public. AGENDA ITEM 5: Swearing in NSB Nominees Dr. Kelly swore in five new NSB members who had recently been confirmed by the U.S. Senate: Dr. George Langford, Dartmouth College, Dr. Joseph Miller, E.I Dupont de Nemours & Co., Dr. Robert Richardson, Cornell University, Dr. Maxine Savitz, AlliedSignal Inc., and Dr. Luis Sequeira, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Emeritus. Dr. Tien's confirmation, he noted, is expected shortly. AGENDA ITEM 6: Minutes, February, March 1999 Meetings The Board APPROVED the Open Session minutes of the February 1999 and the March 1999 NSB Meetings (NSB-99-45, NSB-99-81, respectively, Board Book Tab E) as amended, after noting a correction to the March Minutes. AGENDA ITEM 7: Closed Session Items for July 1999 The Board APPROVED the Closed Session items for the July 1999 Board Meeting (NSB-99-74, Board Book Tab F), attached as Appendix A. AGENDA ITEM 8: Chair's Report a. Election of Executive Committee Members The Chairman announced the reelection of Dr. Claudia Mitchell-Kernan and Dr.Warren Washington to the Executive Committee. b. Committee on Communication and Outreach Dr. Kelly announced the establishment of the Committee on Communication and Outreach, to be chaired by Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood. Members include Drs. George Langford, Eve Menger, Bob Suzuki, Maxine Savitz, and Chang-Lin Tien. Mary Hanson of the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs will serve as Executive Secretary. The committee, is established to advise the Board how best to inform and engage the public about NSF's role in science, discovery and human resources for science and engineering, will present a preliminary plan of action at the July meeting. c. COSEPUP Meeting Dr. Kelly commented on a recent meeting he attended of the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP). He noted that the dominant focus during the question and answer period was on human resources, particularly as related to K-12 education. d. Environmental Task Force Dr. Kelly stated that the Task Force was drafting a preliminary report on its findings and recommendations. The final report is expected to be available at the July Board meeting and Dr. Kelly asked that any comments during the review cycle be directed to him, to Dr. Lubchenco, or to any staff member working on the draft. e. Senate Bill S. 887 Dr. Kelly invited Dr. Robert Richardson to discuss this Senate Bill, S. 887, proposed by Senator Shelby before the House Armed Services Committee. Dr. Richardson read two key sentences dealing with a moratorium on admitting to a facility of a National Laboratory any citizen of a nation appearing on the current Department of Energy Sensitive Countries List. Referring to the portion of the bill that requires any citizen of a foreign nation to undergo a security clearance investigation before entering a National Laboratory, Dr. Richardson noted that the legislation potentially could be damaging to the science enterprise in the U.S. He also noted that the science and engineering manpower pool in the U.S. depends greatly on people born in other countries, After questions and comments were solicited, Dr. Tien made two points: that the percentage of weapons research work in the National Labs has been decreasing; and that U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has expressed grave concerns over the legislation. Dr. Kelly urged the Board to read S. 887 and prepare for a discussion on Friday. He then called on Dr. Colwell for the NSF Director's Report. AGENDA ITEM 9: Director's Report a. NSF Staff Dr. Colwell announced the assignment of Dr. Jane Kahle as Director of the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) on the first of April. Dr. Colwell then announced that Dr. Peggy Fischer received an SES career appointment in April as Associate Inspector General for Scientific Integrity. Dr. Colwell also announced that Dr. Deborah Crawford and Mr. Paul Herer were joining the Office of the Director, following the departure of Dr. Judith Sunley who is on detail to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Next, Dr. Colwell noted that a reorganization of the EHR Directorate was being considered to ensure the integration of education and research. b. Congressional Update Dr. Colwell reported on two hearings at which the NSF testified. Dr. Colwell testified on K-12 Math and Science education issues before the House Science Committee. Both Dr. Kelly and Dr. Colwell testified before the House Basic Research Subcommittee on the NSF FY2000 budget request. The Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Authorization Act passed the House on April 21. This bill authorizes funding for NSF's earthquake engineering research and a portion of NSF's basic research in Earth Science. The funding includes amounts requested for the Engineering and Geosciences Directorates (GEO), and for the Earthquake Program for FY2000. In addition, the bill fully authorizes the $82 million Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). The bill needs Senate approval before enactment, Dr. Colwell next reported that the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees have completed their hearings. Dr. Colwell expects that all discretionary appropriation subcommittees will be constrained, but constraints may be relaxed later in the year. c. Waterman Award Dr. Colwell announced that the Waterman Award Committee reviewed the five-year post-Ph.D. criterion and recommended to the Director an increase to seven years post Ph.D. The NSF Director's Policy Group (DPG) concurred with the change. The eligibility criterion for the Year 2000 award will be 35 years of age or younger or not more than seven years beyond the Ph.D. Dr. Colwell stated that any change in the number of awards requires Board approval and Congressional action, while the grant size only requires Board approval. She asked for Board discussion. Dr. Tien, a member of the Waterman Committee, noted that the Committee recognized that minorities and women would particularly benefit by widening the eligibility criteria, since they are often establishing families at this point in their lives. Further, Dr. Tien pointed out that most of the awards have been given in the mathematics, physics or chemistry fields, and very few for engineering, computer science, astronomy, or geophysics. Relaxing the eligibility criteria or giving more than one award may allow recognition of more fields. He emphasized that the Committee members did not want to diminish the prestige of the award. Dr. Colwell asked the Board for approval to amend the language to give the Committee flexibility to decide how many awards to make each year. The Board discussed changing the name of the award to the Alan T. Waterman Award for Science, Engineering and Education. After discussion, most members felt that a name change was not necessary. Factors relating to engineering, education, and science could be emphasized in the criteria for the award. The Board voted to permit the NSF Director to seek congressional approval to present more than one Alan T. Waterman Award each year. Related Board discussion noted that the Board's feelings on this issue were divided. Dr. Colwell noted that the NSF Directorates should consider the impact of changing the grant size, and Dr. Kelly deferred discussion about other aspects of the Award to a future Board meeting. d. Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Dr. Colwell reported on the first of five meeting of this Commission, held in April. The Commission is composed of 11 members appointed by the President, Congress, or the National Governors Association. Its purpose is to focus attention on barriers to the participation and advancement of women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and engineering; promote workforce diversity; and encourage the replication of best practices. Dr. Colwell stated that the next two meetings will consist of public hearings to gather information, and the final meetings will prepare recommendations to the President and Congress due in the Spring of 2000. Dr. Greenwood requested that information about the composition of the membership and the charge of the Commission be provided to the Board as soon as that information is finalized. e. Research Partnership Dr. Colwell referred to a Presidential Review Directive (PRD) to the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to review and recommend measures to strengthen the partnership between the Government and universities. The goals of the review, she stated, are to assess and reaffirm the principles of partnership; to promote cost-effective, university-based research; and to ensure fair allocation of research costs. Dr. Colwell announced plans to discuss the report in depth at a future meeting. AGENDA ITEM 10: COSEPUP GPRA Report In the absence of Dr. Morris Tannenbaum, who was unable to attend, Dr. Kelly called on Dr. William Colglazier, Executive Officer of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to describe a recent report on the assessment of research results for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Dr. Colglazier reminded the Board that GPRA's objective is to encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in Government programs. Dr. Colglazier said the scientific community was concerned that applying these requirements to basic research could lead to inappropriate quantitative measures. To address these concerns, the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) conducted three workshops: one for industry participants; a second dealing with strategic and performance plans of the agencies; and the last one on assessment methodologies. The COSEPUP GPRA report concluded that useful outcomes of basic research cannot be measured directly on an annual basis because basic research is too unpredictable. Instead, different types of indicators must be used to measure the quality of the research, the relevance of the research to the mission, and the leadership of the research benchmarking. These evaluations can be accomplished by expert review. In terms of leadership, international benchmarking is deemed valuable to compare how countries are doing within certain fields. COSEPUP had similar recommendations for applied research, but milestones could actually be established and progress be evaluated accordingly. COSEPUP also recommended that agencies emphasize the importance of human resources in their strategic and performance plans, which in turn would be part of their programs' evaluation. The report included a recommendation to establish a process that identifies and coordinates areas of research among multiple agencies. COSEPUP suggested identifying a lead agency for each field of research to ensure communications among agencies would be open and forthcoming. Dr. Colglazier said that reaction to the report from Congressional Committees, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Inspectors General was positive. He added that the remaining resources would be used to conduct five workshops: benchmarking; strategic plans; expert review; coordination; and human resources. Dr. Kelly invited questions from the Board. Asked if there would be any assessment of the effect of GPRA, Dr. Richard Bissell, Executive Director of COSEPUP, responded that a more in-depth study was being considered to assist agencies as they move into the next phase of GPRA, examining how different tools would apply to different agencies. Regarding coordination among agencies, Dr. Colglazier assured the Board that no agency would monitor others, but a lead agency would be responsible for knowing what others are doing and communicating relevant activities. Members commended the NRC and COSEPUP for this useful report. AGENDA ITEM 11: Recipients of the Alan T. Waterman, NSB Public Service and Vannevar Bush Awards Dr. Kelly introduced Dr. Chaitan Khosla of Stanford University, winner of the 24th annual Alan T. Waterman Award, which was established by Congress to honor young researchers whose work is at the forefront of their peers. Dr. Kelly pointed out that NSF had recognized Dr. Khosla's talents with research support since 1992 and a Young Investigator Award in 1994. Dr. Khosla thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them. He briefly described his research work with natural products, stating that their importance historically has been for the pharmaceutical industry as the single largest source of new high value product discoveries. Dr. Khosla and his research associates focus on: (1) the chemical aspects of how nature synthesizes these complex, natural molecules; (2) the engineering aspects which seeks to develop new methods to produce new natural products; and (3) the biological aspect whereby they can exploit the properties of molecules for medical purposes. Dr. Khosla said the most important contribution of their research has been the human output-the students and postdoctoral fellows who have trained with them. Second, their work has rekindled the pharmaceutical, agrochemical, and agrobiological industries' interest in natural products. He noted that the first products from their natural product research are already beginning to advance to preclinical testing. Finally he speculated that the long term impact of his research would be based on contributions to the engineering of natural products. Dr. Kelly invited questions. In discussion with the Board, Dr. Khosla acknowledged the difficulty of intellectual property issues associated with natural products, commented on advances in separating cancer cells from healthy cells in human beings, and emphasized the importance of collaboration and interdisciplinary research. Dr. Khosla noted that problems in modern society are too complex for any single discipline to solve. Dr. Kelly congratulated Dr. Khosla and welcomed Dr. Maxine Singer, recipient of the 1999 Vannevar Bush Award. Dr. Singer thanked the Board for the honor of the award. She presented an overview of her work, in relation to research on the three billion base pairs of genes that constitute the human genome. Between five and ten percent of the genome has been found to contain genetic information, she explained, and the remainder is referred to as junk. Dr. Singer believes that these poorly-understood pairs have survived 65 million years of evolution for a reason, and it has been the challenge of her work to discover that reason, She argued that understanding these reasons will help us understand more about the way the life has evolved and about our place in evolution. It has also given understanding of certain human mutations that can cure disease. She concluded that, far from being "junk," the material that is the focus of her research has turned out to be a critical and interesting aspect of the human genome. Board members raised questions concerning both the content of Dr. Singer's research and her role as a scientist-researcher at the same time she is a leader of other people's research. Dr. Singer described what is being learned about the processes that underlie mutations. She also said that to be a leader of other people's research, one must also be actively engaged in research or risk losing sensitivity to the problems that are important to researchers. Dr. Kelly thanked Dr. Singer for her presentation, then welcomed the final awardees present at the meeting who received the 1999 NSB Public Service Award as a group for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) television series, "Bill Nye, The Science Guy." The award was presented to Bill Nye, host and head writer, and to the executive producers, Elizabeth Brock, Erren Gottlieb, and James McKenna. Dr. Kelly welcomed two members of the team, Bill Nye and Elizabeth Brock, and invited them to speak. Ms. Brock thanked the Board for the honor and described the important role that support from NSF played in developing the pilot program. She also discussed the results of evaluations conducted over the last two seasons to measure the program's impact on learning, and stressed the importance of being both educational and entertaining. Mr. Nye said the goal of the program is to get the audience scientifically engaged so that more people will choose scientific careers. Mr. Nye also emphasized that artificial disciplinary distinctions among the sciences were unproductive in their experience. When asked about audience demographics, Mr. Nye said that the show is aimed at 10 year olds (fourth graders). More than forty percent of the viewers, he noted, were adults, and the PBS audience mirrors the ethnic composition of the U.S. Another question asked what NSF should do to increase the scientific literacy of the public. Mr. Nye responded that informal education was very important. In response to a question about national science standards, Mr. Nye said they have found the AAAS science benchmarks useful, but in general, existing standards involve too much detail to be usable in producing their shows. AGENDA ITEM 12: NSB Committee Charges and Structure Dr. Kelly deferred discussion of this Agenda item until Friday to provide time for the presentation on long-range planning. AGENDA ITEM 13: NSF Long-Range Planning and Budget - FY 2001 Dr. Colwell presented an overview of the Long-Range Planning process. The March NSB meeting began the annual cycle of planning and budget development based on Directorate needs and opportunities. This meeting will outline the key elements of the FY 2001 budget. In June, the NSB Executive Committee will focus on a detailed FY 2001 budget. The budget proposal will be presented to the Board in July for approval; and the budget request will be submitted to OMB in September. Dr. Colwell discussed the key influences on the FY 2001 budget development process: the NSF strategic plan; and long-term budget emphasis areas such as IT2, Biocomplexity, and the science and engineering workforce. She said members of Congress have been generally supportive of proposals and testimony brought before both the House and Senate. However, she cautioned, the overall constrained budget environment demands that the FY 2001 budget be very compelling. She also stated that the NSF GPRA strategic plan is due to OMB by March 2000, giving NSF less than a year for development. Dr. Colwell described the key elements of the NSF vision that embrace discovery, learning and enablement. She noted the need to identify NSF as an investor in the future, and suggested that the first FY2001-2005 unifying budget theme should be the 21st Century Workforce. A second theme should be information and connectivity. In discussing the mission of the NSF, Dr. Colwell noted that the mission statement written in 1955 is still applicable today. Now, as then, it is imperative that NSF continues to support research that reaches all fields and all disciplines, and education at all levels. She said the NSF Strategic Plan and the NSF GPRA Strategic Plan both emphasize knowledge, human resources, and infrastructure. Dr. Colwell said that the Directorate priorities could be described in similar terms: the infrastructure (capability to do the things needed); research (having the information and knowledge at each level of synthesis); and the workforce (human resources). The priority-setting process within the Directorates was based on these three emphasis areas and would determine what should be included in the FY2001 budget request. Dr. Colwell noted three themes that will be emphasized in the FY 2001 budget: Information technology; biocomplexity, and the S&E workforce for the 21st century. She first discussed research on information technology as a national imperative, as outlined in a recent report by the President's Information Technology Advisory Commission (PITAC). Since PITAC's recommendations were released last December, an Interagency working group has been established, with NSF as the lead Agency, and the directors from the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) participating. Among the IT2 goals Dr. Colwell cited education as one of the most pressing. The goal to have a premiere science-, math-, engineering-, technology-educated workforce is the key to tapping the full potential of all the emerging technologies. Estimates show that IT has generated a third of the recent growth in the U.S. economy, accounting for 7.4 million jobs. Biocomplexity, a multidisciplinary approach to understanding the world's environment, also has enormous payoffs. Dr. Colwell next presented international data to support the need for investment in basic research. Several members cautioned that the data presented did not acknowledge the substantial time lag between investments in research and output in the economy. Dr. Colwell posed a question for the members to consider before the next day's meeting. If NSF does not receive additional resources, what tradeoffs should be made between award size, duration, proposal success rates, and the number of investigators NSF supports? Dr. Tien suggested that NSF help grantees find funding from outside government sources, for example from industry or from foundations through matching funds. Some discussion followed on whether this approach would put scientific merit at risk. It was also pointed out that the relationship between grant size or duration and scientific productivity also needs more study. The Board discussed data available to help understand these issues. Dr. Kelly concluded the discussion with compliments to Dr. Colwell on the presentation. The meeting was recessed at 5:25 p.m. ********* Friday, May 27, 1999 Dr. Kelly, Chairman, reconvened the Open Session at 8:35 a.m., and reminded those present that the meeting was being recorded. AGENDA ITEM 12: NSB Committee Charges and Structure Dr. Kelly returned to this agenda item, asking Dr. Marta Cehelsky, NSB Executive Officer, to present a review of the NSB Committee Charges and Structure. Beginning with an historical overview, Dr. Cehelsky remarked that the earliest committees formed in the 1950s were disciplinary-based. In the 1960s, committees were organized according to function, with three general areas of Board responsibility: Programs, Administration, and Policy and Planning. Budget Committees were established intermittently. Dr. Cehelsky noted that the most recent review of the NSB committees occurred in 1985-1986. This was the last major reform effort, which resulted in a plan to establish three Standing committees: Education and Human Resources (EHR), Programs and Plans (CPP), Audit and Oversight Committee (A&O). At one point there was a Budget Committee, but it was soon eliminated and its functions were shifted to the Executive Committee. Dr. Cehelsky described the original charges of the major committees. The Executive Committee had the powers delegated to it by the Board, which included the ability to act for the Board between meetings. The Executive Committee was also responsible for reviewing and setting the Board agenda, for coordinating the work of the committees, and for monitoring the NSF budget activity and advising the Board on budget matters. The biggest change since 1986 is that the Executive Committee has been delegated the authority both to monitor the NSF budget and to approve the NSF budget submission to OMB. This action was formally taken in 1997. The CPP Committee was established to oversee long-range planning for NSF and to provide comprehensive reviews of programs, allowing the Board to influence program development at early stages. This was intended to move the Board away from the necessity that characterized their work until the mid-1980's for review and approval of specific awards. In the mid-1980's, legislative changes made it possible for the Board to delegate approvals to the Director at whatever level it wishes. The EHR committee was established to have powers equivalent to CPP, but in the educational area. Other broad responsibilities included monitoring the educational portfolio of NSF. The oldest of the committees, A&O, had been created primarily to monitor the NSF review process in approving awards and agreements. Other functions were added, such as reviewing internal controls, monitoring policies and procedures, and conducting Special Board Investigations. A&O evolved a large role in monitoring administrative policy issues and in supervising the Inspector General (IG). In the years since 1986, concerns were raised that the Board structure did not reflect the NSF's emphasis on the integration of research and education. For the most part, however, the structure of the Board has not significantly changed since 1985-1986. Recent operational changes encouraged the conduct of business electronically and made memberships in standing committees mutually exclusive. Task committees, since 1985, have been established to work through the Standing Committees and to deal with specific policy issues. Then, as now, they have been encouraged to use external consultants to provide expert information. Dr. Cehelsky asked the Board to consider if changes are necessary to the current structure of the Board and its committees. She raised several questions: Do the committee charges need to be updated or clarified in the context of the NSB strategic plan? Do the existing processes work well? Are committees working effectively? Is the current structure appropriate for optimal oversight of the NSF? Dr. Suzuki, Chair, EHR, remarked that the current structure for the most part would continue to be effective. He suggested, however, that the charge of EHR be expanded to emphasize the current concerns about math and science education at the K-12 level. He voiced concern about the integration of education and research, and said that more committee meeting time was needed to review policy issues. A&O Committee Chairman Dr. Jaskolski remarked that the current committee structure was good, but that the descriptions of the committees in the charges emphasized reactive roles (e.g. "conducts," reviews," evaluates," supervises"). He suggested that the wording be updated to reflect a more proactive role. The Chair of CPP, Dr. Armstrong, noted that his committee is constantly trying to devote more time to reviewing long-range research initiatives, and decrease the time spent on the statutory review of proposed awards. Dr. Richardson noted his frustration at the committees' exclusive memberships. He would rather have staggered meeting times to be able to attend meetings of other committees. Dr. Kelly noted the suggestion to consider staggering the meeting times. With no further comment, Dr. Kelly asked that additional questions or suggestions on this topic be made to Dr. Cehelsky as soon as possible. AGENDA ITEM 15: Annual Business (a) NSB Calendar for 2000 Dr. Kelly referred to Tab G (NSB-99-83) in the Board Book, where a proposed 2000 NSB meeting calendar was set out. He asked that the Board review the calendar and respond to the Board Office before the next meeting if there are scheduling conflicts. The NSB 2000 calendar will be finalized at the July meeting. (b) Executive Committee Annual Report Referring to Tab H (NSB/EC-99-9) of the Board Book, Dr. Kelly called on Dr. Colwell to present the Annual Report of the NSB Executive Committee. Dr. Colwell stated that the Report was approved by the Executive Committee on Wednesday, May 5, and noted that no further action was required by the full Board. Dr. Colwell invited questions, but none were raised. AGENDA ITEM 16: Cost-Sharing Policy Dr. Kelly called on Acting Deputy Director Dr. Bordogna to deliver his presentation on cost-sharing. Dr. Bordogna began by noting that this item had been presented at each of the standing committee meetings. Board members noted a need to revise the Policy statement and further discussion was tabled until after the Committee reports (Agenda item 17) were made. AGENDA ITEM 17: Committee Reports a. Audit and Oversight (A&O) Dr. Stanley Jaskolski, Chair, delivered the A&O report after first acknowledging and thanking Executive Secretaries Joanna Rom and René Pettis for their help in coordinating the minutes. In providing an update on Y2K, Dr. Jaskolski noted that NSF is on track with its systems in compliance for Y2K processing. The remainder of the year will focus on identifying backup and contingency plans. Dr. Jaskolski further reported that the Committee accepted the NSF cost-sharing policy as it was written, but will refine some of the language in light of the recent Board discussion. Next, Dr. Jaskolski referred to the recently issued 1998 NSF Accountability Report, which was distributed to the Board. This report contains both financial accounting information and performance information. NSF, he announced, received a clean accounting opinion from its independent auditors, and was one of only two federal agencies to receive an A rating for its financial efforts from the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology. Dr. Jaskolski next referred to the GPRA efforts, as reported by Paul Herer and Loretta Hopkins of the Office of the Director and Philip Sunshine, Acting Inspector General. Drafts of the official performance report will be distributed for review, and comments will be welcome via the Web. The final item noted was the Committee's discussion of the IG's semiannual report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 1999. The Committee made no exceptions to the report, and agreed on the contents of the NSB management letter that will transmit the report to the Hill. Dr. Kelly congratulated NSF staff on the clean financial opinion. b. Programs and Plans (CPP) The Chair of CPP, Dr. John Armstrong, reported on the working session with the Task Force on the Environment, in which the Task Force discussed its findings and recommendations. Dr. Armstrong reported on the discussion led by Dr. Bordogna and Dr. Colwell about the long-range planning for NSF infrastructure. He noted that infrastructure encompasses not only equipment but also facilities that involve distributed networking and database capabilities. He noted that there had not been enough time to discuss the status report given by Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy, Assistant Director for Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering (CISE) about the CISE Directorate's IT2 planning. Dr. Armstrong noted that the Committee needs to expand the definition of infrastructure. He stated that one of the issues is that the capital cost of distributed infrastructure may be a smaller fraction of the overall cost of ownership and operation than it currently is. Dr. Jaskolski commented that the infrastructure issue provides opportunities for new and better software design in which the NSF can take a leadership role. Dr. Kelly invited additional comments from Dr. Lubchenco regarding the Environment Task Force. She responded that the Task Force is close to finalizing its findings and recommendations, and anticipates delivering the report to CPP and the Board at the July meeting. Dr. Kelly reiterated that the final draft of the report by the Task Force on the Environment would be provided to the Board in advance of the July meeting. c. Education and Human Resources (EHR) Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chair, EHR, began his report stating that the Committee approved the Report on the field hearings that were held by the EHR Committee Task force on Math and Science Achievement in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Puerto Rico in 1998. Dr. Suzuki noted that the report would be posted on the NSB web site, as well as distributed in hardcopy via mail. Another report, "Preparing Our Children," is expected to by issued in late May and distributed nationwide to state boards of education, and four-year institutions. Dr. Suzuki next discussed the presentation his Committee received on NSF research and education funding and review profiles. The Committee asked that additional data be presented at the July EHR meeting. Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director, EHR, reported on EHR initiatives in three major areas: research, the science, math, engineering and technology (SMET) instructional workforce, and science and engineering workforce diversity. Dr. Suzuki reported that NSF will fund 20 of the 150 proposals received by the 1999 K-12 Teaching Fellows program, and that NSF plans to institute an undergraduate SMET Teaching Scholars Program K-14 that involves faculty from several disciplines. Suggestions were made to engage parents in the education process and to study the role of parents and family in education. Finally, Dr. Suzuki reported on the EHR Committee's work plan. Five policy areas had been identified: K-16 education; research into education; promoting greater collaboration among institutions; promoting diversity; and promoting greater public understanding of science and engineering. There was general agreement in the Committee that the priority item should be the focus on K-16 education. Members agreed to focus on how NSF can maximize its impact. The Committee recommended that a symposium be organized, and will develop further details about on this in July. Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators - 2000 Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair, EHR Subcommittee on Science an Engineering Indicators, reported that the subcommittee began reviewing chapters for the Year 2000 volume and discussed external reviewers for each chapter. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan said that Chapter I, "Science and Technology in Times of Transition: The 1940s to the 1990s" had been sent out for external review several weeks prior to their meeting, and seven reviews had been returned, with two promised shortly. One of the major recommendations from reviewers was to include more information on progress in scientific areas in the last 50 years. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan encouraged the Board to participate in the review of the draft chapters. She also noted that another NSF volume, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science & Engineering (NSF 99-338) was recently published and copies were sent to all Board members. d. Executive Committee Dr. Rita Colwell, Chair of the Executive Committee, reported that the FY 2001 budget should be brought to the NSB Executive Committee for approval at the July 28-29 NSB Meeting. Should sufficient time not be available at that meeting, time has been reserved for an Executive Committee meeting on August 10. e. Task Force on International Issues Dr. Diana Natalicio, Chair, reported that the Task Force approved a work plan aimed at presenting a draft report to the Board at the May 2000 meeting. She said that the Task force was in an information-gathering stage and will conduct hearings and presentations. The first panel, scheduled for July, will look at how various agencies interact. Dr. Natalicio welcomed suggestions about topics or speakers that the Task Force should consider and encouraged Board members to participate in the hearings. f. Task Force on NSB 50th Anniversary Dr. Warren Washington delivered the report in the absence of Dr. Vera Rubin, Chair. He reported on the three items discussed during an April 29th conference call: (1) a brochure prepared by a science journalist celebrating the Board's accomplishments, to be completed by December 2000, and a comprehensive history by a science historian planned for publication two or three years after the fiftieth anniversary; (2) plans for naming an asteroid after the NSF; and (3) plans for the actual celebration, with a dinner scheduled for December 11, 2000. Dr. Kelly noted that the NSF Director is scheduled to attend the Nobel Award ceremony in Sweden on December 10, 2000, and therefore the celebration may be rescheduled to December 12. He suggested that members clear their calendars for December 11 through 13, 2000. g. Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues Dr. Kelly, Chair of the Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues, reported that the Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Bruce Donn, Director of the Science and Technology Policy Institute at RAND, on the RaDiUS Database Project. Dr. Donn discussed its potential use to measure the status and output of federal research funding. The Committee also discussed a draft workplan for the committee's work. AGENDA ITEM 18: CPP Task Force on the Environment Dr. Jane Lubchenco reported that the draft report and recommendations of the Task Force are close to being final, and delivery to the Board was expected for the July meeting. AGENDA ITEM 16 (Continued): Cost-Sharing Policy Dr. Kelly reintroduced the topic of the revised language for a cost-sharing policy. The Board APPROVED a revised statement on cost-sharing policy (NSB-99-92, attached), replacing the sentence on page two to read: Requirements for cost-sharing may take into account the type of institution, institutional size, level of other research support, populations serviced, et cetera. Dr. Bordogna announced that the cost-sharing principles would be ready for distribution immediately after the meeting. NON-AGENDA ITEMS Dr. Colwell announced that Dr. Chang-Lin Tien of the University of California, Berkeley, was confirmed the previous night as a member of the National Science Board for a term expiring on May 10, 2004. Also, Dr. Joseph Bordogna was confirmed as Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Colwell announced that Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant Director for Biological Sciences, had been recognized as a 1998 Presidential Distinguished Executive Rank Awardee. Dr. Clutter received a $20,000 award and was honored at a White House ceremony for her accomplishments. Further, Dr. Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, Office of the Director, was recognized with a 1998 Meritorious Executive Rank Award, including a $10,000 award. Dr. Kelly returned to the topic of Senate Bill 887, which proposed a moratorium on foreign visitors to U.S. Department of Energy nuclear laboratories. Dr. Richardson distributed a statement about the Bill. Several members emphasized the seriousness of the issue, stating that the Bill could have severe repercussions on the scientific enterprise as a whole. The membership concurred that subject to additional information on the issue the Executive Committee was authorized to approve a Board statement on Senate Bill 887. There was no further business and the Open Session was adjourned at 10:20 a.m., to reconvene at 10:30 a.m. in Closed Session. ________________ Catherine J. Hines Operations Officer Attachments: Appendix A: Closed Session Items for the May 1999 Board Meeting Appendix B: National Science Foundation Policy Statement on Cost-Sharing (NSB-99-92) Appendix A to NSB-99-110 Record of discussion 353rd Meeting National Science Board May 6-7, 1999 The Chairman presented a list of items to be considered in Closed Session at the July, 1999 NSB meeting (NSB-99-74). 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 July 28-29, 1999 shall be closed to the public: 1. That portion in which minutes of the closed sessions of earlier meetings will be discussed. An open meeting on that portion would be likely to compromise information and discussions properly held confidential under the Board's resolutions authorizing the closed sessions. 2. Those portions having to do with discussions regarding nominees for appointment as National Science Board (NSB) members and National Science Foundation (NSF) staff, or with specific staffing or personnel actions. An open meeting on these subjects would be likely to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 3. Those portions having to do with future budgets not yet submitted by the President to the Congress. 4. Those portions having to do with pending proposals and proposed awards for specific grants, contracts or other arrangements. An open meeting on those portions would be likely to disclose personal information and constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. It would also be likely to disclose research plans and other related information that are trade secrets, and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential. An open meeting would also prematurely disclose the position of the NSF on the proposals in question before final negotiations and any determination by the Director to make the awards and so would be likely to frustrate significantly the implementation of the proposed Foundation action. ________________ Catherine J. Hines Operations Officer