John A. Armstrong
Mary K. Gaillard
Eve L. Menger
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan
Vera S. Rubin
Bob H. Suzuki
Warren M. Washington
Rita R. Colwell, Director
NSB Consultants Present
John E. Hopcroft
Shirley M. Malcom
Members Absent:Sanford D. Greenberg
NSB Consultants Absent:
Charles E. Hess
Note: The Board, at its 350th meeting, November 18-19, 1998, approved the Provisional Minutes of the Open Session of the 349th meeting.
The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 2:15 p.m. on Thursday, August 13, 1998 with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman of the NSB, presiding (Agenda NSB-98-152). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Swearing in of NSF Director
Dr. Kelly welcomed Dr. Rita Colwell as the new NSF Director and administered the Oath of Office. Dr. Colwell was nominated by President Clinton as the eleventh Director on February 13, and confirmed by the Senate on May 29. Dr. Colwell previously served as the President, Maryland Biotechnology Institute, and University of Maryland.
Dr. Colwell expressed her pleasure at being appointed Director and stated her intention to work in close concert with the Board.
AGENDA ITEM 6: Minutes, May 1998 Meeting
Due to a lack of quorum, the NSB Executive Committee, in a special session, approved the Provisional Minutes of the Open Session of the May 5-8, 1998 meeting (NSB-98-105, Board book, Tab H).
AGENDA ITEM 7: Closed Session Agenda Items for August 1999The Agenda Item was not acted on and deferred to the November NSB meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 8: Chair's Report
a. Board members
The Chair announced the following:
(1) Dr. Richard Tapia received the American Association for the Advancement of Science Lifetime Achievement Award.
(2) Dr. Warren Washington was honored on August 10 by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research as the first Walter Orr Roberts Distinguished Lecturer, for his achievements in scientific research, education, and national science policy.
Dr. Natalicio, Vice Chair, announced that Dr. Kelly received the National Arts Club Centennial Medal for Outstanding Contributions to Education and Humanity in New York City.
b. NSB Committees
The Chair established the NSB Task Force on the Environment, with Dr. Lubchenco as chair. Other members will include Drs. Gaillard, Solow and Washington. Dr. Hopcroft will participate as a consultant, and Drs. Mary Clutter, Assistant Director, Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO), and Dr. Robert Corell, Assistant Director, Geosciences (GEO), will serve as NSF liaisons.
The Chair discharged the Task Force on Government & Performance Results Act. Dr. White chaired the Task Force, with Drs. Jaskolski, Mitchell-Kernan and Suzuki as members. NSF staff included Drs. Robert Corell, Assistant Director, GEO, Dr. John Hunt, Acting Director, Office of Polar Programs, and Dr. Eileen Collins, Senior Assessment Studies Coordinator, Science Resources Studies Division, SBE, as Executive Secretary.
AGENDA ITEM 9: Director's Report
a. NSF Staff
Dr. Colwell, NSF Director, announced the following appointments:
(1) Dr. Eugene Wong as Assistant Director for Engineering, effective June 15. He is from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. He also serves as Chief Scientist and member of the Board of Directors of Vision Software Tools, Inc. He was a codesigner of INGRES, one of the first modern database systems, and cofounded Vision Software. From 1990-93 he served as Associate Director for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He received a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Princeton University.
(2) Dr. Machi Dilworth as Division Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure, BIO, effective August 2. She was previously a program director in the division and had served as Acting Director. She received her Ph.D. in applied chemistry and biochemistry from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1971.
On July 16 the House began debate on the FY 1999 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies appropriation's bill and added $70 million to the research and related accounts. The House bill will provide $8.7B more than the FY 1998 level, with an increase of $54M in research and related, $90M in major research equipment, and $643M (or $10M more than FY 1998) for Education & Human Resources. Other areas are currently funded at the requested level. On July 17, the Senate completed action on the bill.
The President signed the NSF Authorization Bill on July 20, the first authorization signed into law since 1988. The Bill authorizes NSF in FY 1998, 1999 and 2000 with the FY 1999 levels at those requested, a 10% increase over FY 1998.
c. Advanced Scientific Computing
The Director provided an update on the Department of Energy-NSF Initiative in Advanced Scientific Computing and reported that the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) issued an interim report to the President.
The reports two major points are that the Federal government is under investing in information research and development (R&D), and the Federal research agenda is too heavily focused on near-term problems, to the exclusion of very important long-term research. PITAC also recommended that NSF serve as the lead federal agency for coordinating information technology research. Over the next several weeks NSF will engage the science and engineering community and other agencies in discussions about the reports recommendations. There are working groups soliciting feedback from the research community on the PITAC recommendations, and the final report is due to Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) in January 1999.
AGENDA ITEM 10: Briefing - PCAST Environmental Report
The Chairman introduced Dr. Peter Raven, Director, Missouri Botanical Garden, Engleman Professor of Botany at Washington University, and former Board member, to provide a briefing on the President's Council of Advisor's on Science and Technology report, Teaming with Life, on biodiversity and ecosystems. He noted that the National Science Foundation is the largest investor in biological diversity and studies of ecosystems in the world. For a variety of reasons, other Federal agencies have difficulty in engaging in this field.
Dr. Raven recalled that in 1972 he chaired a committee, of which Dr. Colwell was a member, charged with studying biodiversity and the priorities the Foundation ought to have in biodiversity and systematic and evolutionary research. In 1973 the committee reported its two main findings: 1) a need to study biodiversity in tropical environments and 2) a need to apply the modern and readily available techniques of informatics and information theory and computers to analyzing biodiversity. In 1974, Dr. Raven chaired a National Research Council committee that produced a statement on research priorities in tropical biology. He noted the 1989 Board report, Loss of Biological Diversity: A Global Crisis Requiring International Solutions (NSB-89-171), prepared by committee of which Dr. Colwell was a member, called for increases in funding for biodiversity studies. Several aspects of that report later became budgetary items in the Foundation budget.
The objective of the PCAST report is to advise the Administration on how to deal with biodiversity and ecosystems. Dr. Raven noted that the committee that produced this report included as outside members Drs. Colwell and Lubchenco, among others.
The PCAST report urges more concentration on living systems and organisms, focusing on the living systems in the United States in view of poor public support for funding international cooperation. It includes three major themes: education, energy, and biodiversity and ecosystems. The three primary reasons that study in these areas is important at this time are: 1) 200 years of the Industrial Revolution has left a world that is not operating sustainably. 2) the popular expectation that the 21st Century will be an "Age of Biology," meaning drawing on attributes of individual organisms and the ways in which organisms combine in communities and ecosystems to provide sustainable natural capital on which to base our future economic development, and 3) the extraordinarily poor state of knowledge about biological diversity and ecosystem functions.
The PCAST report contains six recommendations for investment in research and education, which are briefly: coordinate existing data sources on biological diversity from all levels of government, accelerate efforts to catalog and develop a knowledge base about species, expand ecosystem monitoring to the full diversity of ecosystem types, support research on the economic value of the natural environment, develop the "next generation" National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII), and develop broad public environmental literacy through formal and informal education.
Dr. Raven reviewed the costs involved for implementation of the Committee's recommendations. Currently, $480 million a year is being spent in the six areas described. The Committee is recommending an increase of approximately $200 million a year over the next three years to fully implement the recommendations. He noted that all recommendations have international ramifications. However, merely by focusing on the future of our own national biodiversity and ecosystems the U.S. can develop assets to promote a sustainable, healthy and prosperous future for this country and save billions of dollars in costs of remediation that will be necessary without adequate knowledge and attention to these issues. He urged NSF to continue and increase its own efforts and to work with other mission-oriented Federal agencies to build the national effort to be able to address the PCAST recommendations.
Responding to a question from Dr. Bordogna concerning embedding education in the environment in every scientific discipline, Dr. Raven noted that human interaction with the whole environmental system is multidimensional, involving all the scientific disciplines. He urged strengthening assistance to those in universities who bring together the disparate educational elements involved in innovative patterns for training all undergraduates concerning the environment and sustainability. He cited as a model a program at the University of Georgia.
Responding to Dr. Washington on the role that other agencies have in environmental-biodiversity research, Dr. Raven noted responsibility for public lands in the Department of Interior, U.S. Forestry Service and the military, and responsibilities for biological diversity under he National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and others. He noted that in the U.S., NSF plays a major role in the research on environmental-biodiversity, as do private agencies and the like, while in other countries such research would be a normal government function. Other U.S. agencies need to internalize the goals and objectives identified by PCAST or it will not be possible to reach the goals laid out in the report.
Responding to Dr. Suzuki on where the "point of no return" might be, Dr. Raven expressed the opinion that the world could not sustain another century like the last. And though extinction is unlikely, the world is facing the real possibility of a future with few biological resources. Responding to Dr. Menger on possible sources for the development of environmental policy, he noted that most are at the national level, such as the President's Council for Sustainable Development, which has tried to bring together the private and public sector to discuss the kind of actions that would make the country sustainable. He noted that though most government agencies are involved with sustainability, it is a world problem, not a United States problem alone, which requires raising the level of scientific, engineering and technological expertise to be able to confront these problems that are common to all.
Dr. Kelly thanked Dr. Raven for his extraordinary presentation.
AGENDA ITEM 11: Science & Engineering Indicators (SEI) Plan
Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair, S&EI, noted that in May the committee determined the necessity for setting short and long-term plans for the publication of Indicators. She called on Ms. Jennifer Bond, Executive Secretary for Indicators, and Director, Science & Engineering Indicators Program, Science Resources Studies Division, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE), to review plans that were developed.
Ms. Bond noted the committee's efforts to gather information about decision makers' needs in planning Indicators reports beyond the 2000 volume. Key users were contacted, including science researchers, Congressional staff, Executive Branch, OSTP, OMB and leaders at Federal science and engineering agencies, to comment on how the report is being used, and what they like about it, to get a better sense of what should be preserved or changed in future reports. Most of the interviews and information gathered was based on Indicators 1996.
The interviews resulted in some key findings: (1) the Indicators was well liked and heavily employed in speeches and policymaking; (2) respondents used not only with the current version, but older versions for reference; (3) users felt the report should maintain its objectivity and should not become an advocacy document. 4) the R&D chapter with expenditure data, and the academic chapter should be continued; 5) response to the web version is very positive, but hard copy is still popular; and 6) more international coverage is needed. Ms. Bond explained that the committee would continue planning for future volumes.
The next issue, Indicators 2000, will have a historical perspective and perhaps take a look back in the history of NSF and the national resources for science and technology available at different times, either through a special chapter about the history or a more integrative approach. The committee favored the report that would provide a brief review of science resources comparisons (then and now), education, workforce, R&D expenditures, and international comparisons and cooperation. The committee asked NSF staff to develop a more comprehensive outline and more information on the feasibility of such a report for discussion before the November meeting.
Dr. Suzuki suggested considering a chapter on the environment, given the increasing importance of this issue. He added that the EHR discussion had noted that currently the Indicators consists for the most part of statistical summaries, and that the committee had discussed the need for true indicators of the state of, for example, K-12 science and mathematics education.
Dr. Lubchenco further suggested that coordination between preparation of the 2000 Indicators and what various NSB committees/Task Forces and NSF staff are planning for the 50th anniversary celebration.
AGENDA ITEM 12: Presentation on International Issues
Dr. Kelly asked Dr. Colwell, NSF Director, for introductory remarks. He noted the importance of this area to both the Board and Director. Dr. Colwell observed that science and engineering communities are global and it is time to examine the role of NSF in the context of what other agencies are doing now as well as what should be done in the 21st Century. The Division of International Programs (INT), SBE, was asked to report on what is happening within NSF. Dr. Colwell called on Dr. Pierre Perrolle, Director, INT, to give the presentation.
Dr. Perrolle's presentation focused on how the Foundation operates in its global context and how it contributes to the global nature of science and engineering. NSF's international mission consists of two elements. First, to advance U.S. science and engineering through international activities and, secondly, insuring that the U.S. scientists and engineers have international experience.
Dr. Pierrolle provided an overview of the size of NSF's international portfolio, some of the international activities and what drives them, and an outline of NSF's implicit international investment strategies. NSF's international portfolio in FY 1997 was approximately $350M, or 10% of the total budget, spread unevenly throughout the Directorates within NSF.
The International Division, organized by geographic regions, is the NSF-designated organization for handling all international matters that are not specific to one set of scientific disciplines. The four principle functions are: 1) policy support to senior management, 2) maintaining foreign relations with science agencies and science ministries and NSF-like organizations around the world, 3) running catalytic programs for research and education, and 4) maintaining expertise on countries and regions of the world. Dr. Perrolle noted that the forces that drive NSF's international activities are threefold:
1) Research community demand. This includes overseas sites for field research, unique foreign facilities, and collaboration with foreign scientists. In recent years, NSF has supported 30-40 regional or global scale projects that combine site collaboration and facilities. Two such projects are the tropical ocean and global atmosphere program (TOGA) in the Geosciences Directorate that was managed multilaterally by representatives from 18 partner countries within the World Meteorological Organization, the International Oceanographic Committee of UNESCO, and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), and the Biological Sciences Directorate long-term ecological research (LTER) network that serves as the infrastructure for intersite comparisons, international collaboration among researchers, sharing data, and opportunities for students to observe and research in any of the 16 countries that have over 250 sites.
2) NSF Strategic objectives. The NSF strategic objectives focus on connections with a global pool of people and ideas, a globally oriented science and engineering workforce, sharing costs internationally, and building connections through new partnerships and the Materials Research Network. In response to building connections, NSF provides new support for approximately 500 individual investigator projects, with roughly half of these projects of a collaborative nature. INT targets new collaborations, for example a series of planning meetings in Europe, Latin America and East Asia organized by the Mathematical and Physical Sciences and Engineering Directorates to help identify agencies, professional societies, research institutions for scientific data exchange and long-distance research.
Each Directorate is supporting students and postdoctoral candidates within international research projects toward developing a globally oriented science and engineering work force. Approximately 100 graduate students receive dissertation support each year. Some other special programs that attract graduate students or postdoctorates are the NATO postdoctoral fellowship program, managed by the Education and Human Resources Directorate, supporting 30 Americans annually. The INT division supports students in Japanese and Korean laboratories by providing international airfare, while the respective governments support in-country costs and schooling in languages. Recently the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Agriculture began participating in the program on the U.S. side and the Japanese and Korean Ministries of Education as foreign partners.
Virtually all NSF-supported international collaborations are based on the principle of each country supporting the cost of its participating researchers. Common costs are shared through contributions in kind. Also shared are construction costs for large facilities, such as Gemini Telescopes and the Large Hadron Collider. There is considerable consensus and coherence among NSF staff regarding international investment strategies. To pursue discovery at overseas sites, to foster international collaboration, to share facilities and to share the costs of facilities internationally.
3) Other factors driving NSF's international activities are the initiatives that come from other parts of the U.S. Government pertaining to foreign policy objectives or national security objectives, and some from other countries. In recent years, the White House has launched a series of bilateral political frameworks for countries of special foreign policy or national security importance. For example, the Gore-Keriyenko Commission in South Africa, the Gore-Mubarak Commission with Egypt, and the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission with Russia (see also February 1997 Open Session Minutes, NSB-97-56, Agenda Item 7c).
Responding to Dr. Washington on guidelines for sharing costs on collaborative projects, Dr. Perrolle explained that the INT Division has small ($20,000-30,000) proposals (one at NSF and one in another country) to cover costs, and an analogous process takes place in the other country. If there is an agreement on merit of the proposal on both sides, the proposal is funded. Dr. Corell, Assistant Director, GEO, and Dr. Eisenstein, Assistant Director, MPS, responded that in the larger projects, the contributions from each country in the collaboration is based on their respective scientific participation. The U.S. contribution may be substantial, but usually not the majority of costs. Congressional input is also an important factor. Mr. Joel Widder, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative & Public Affairs noted that in for the Gemini project, the Appropriations Committee agreed to fund 50 percent of costs, but required that other countries cover the remainder.
Dr. Tapia noted a positive experience with a U.S./Mexico collaboration on workshops, and asked if NSF was still participating in such collaborations. He further asked about NSF priorities for collaboration with specific countries. Dr. Perrolle responded that the Foundation continues to support numerous workshops, sometimes with a group of countries, or with one country. As for priorities on what countries to fund, INT tries to establish a geographic balance and therefore does not allocate money to specific geographic areas, but looks at the demand for funding. The primary motivation in collaboration is to advance science as proposed by the U.S. community. The projects supported come largely from individual investigators and are not strategic in relation to technology transfer efforts.
AGENDA ITEM 13: STRATEGIES FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Bordogna introduced the presentation, noting the purpose is to inform the Board on NSF activities and goals in this area. He introduced Dr. Wanda Ward, Assistant to the Deputy Director for Human Resource Development to make the presentation. Dr. Ward and Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, General Counsel, provided an update on science, engineering and technology human resource development for the 21st century (see also February 1998 Open Session Minutes, NSB-98-52, Agenda Item 16, Panel IV, NSF Long Range Planning).
Dr. Ward noted that the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) has stated that human resource development (HRD) is a priority in under the new Science Adviser, Dr. Neal Lane. The NSF office is active in an interagency working group of the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Science that is addressing this issue.
For the past 18-24 months the Foundation has had a Human Resources Development working group, which recently submitted its report to the Deputy Director who chairs the NSF HRD Task Force. The recommendations address education at the graduate and undergraduate levels, administration and management, career development, and critical research issues on learning and on HRD in particular. Also, an undergraduate education-working group has recently completed a preliminary report to the Senior Management Integration Group at NSF. Some of the issues and recommendations tie into the broader HRD portfolio and policies being addressed.
Two years ago, as a result of a required review by the U.S. Justice Department, the NSF reviewed HRD programs. NSF recently held a workshop that focused on the science and engineering workforce of the future. In that workshop, the recommendation by the Administration for a national HRD strategy in its report, Science in the National Interest, was reinforced. Some topics that might be entailed in a national HRD policy would involve science literacy as a tool for citizenship.
In NSF, the agency HRD strategy is being initiated now. The NSF Task Force will be engaged in programmatic policy level strategy and will draft a personnel search policy to reflect the kind of HRD commitment needed to drive the enterprise of the future. The latter would focus on the science and engineering professional staff within the Foundation. At the program level, the focus would be on developing the programmatic portfolio of the future for K to career. Connectedness and transitions within the system and the integration of research and education would be a focus. The infusion of diversity throughout all programs would be a key strategy. At this time, the focus is on undergraduate education, research on teaching and learning and their impacts on HRD, and research on diversity. Finally, under the issue of accountability, critical factors include evaluation portfolios and infrastructure supported by NSF. All these areas need to be informed by NSF's strategic context, the legal landscape.
Mr. Rudolph noted that the legal rules are unclear, and constantly evolving. He provided a snapshot of several landmark cases in Texas and Massachusetts involving affirmative action programs and discrimination. Based on the decisions and sometimes competing court rulings, the Foundation must do three things: (1) design programs that are consistent with the commitment to increase diversity, and to the best that can be determined with the current state of the law; (2) be proactive and imaginative; and (3) engage in innovative experiments in order to serve the science and engineering community and the needs of the Nation.
Responding to questions concerning where NSF is in the reformulation of Foundation affirmative action policies and diversity policies in terms of the outcome of court cases, Dr. Ward noted that new portfolio needs are constantly being reviewed and that the Foundation is setting protocols for selection of programs and personnel, while being sensitive to the affirmative action/discrimination issues. For example, the Graduate and Minority Graduate Fellowship Program in EHR, is setting a model of what the program needs to look like mainstream and imbed diversity.
Dr. Kelly noted that affirmative action and diversity is a matter of concern for the Board and agreed with staff emphasis on the need for creativity in addressing these issues.
In response to comments from Board members, Mr. Rudolph noted that in the middle of the various affirmative action/diversity rulings, the Office of the General Counsel issued a legal advisory that set some ground rules, one of which was that states and universities are encouraged to contact the NSF General Counsel's office, but also need to consult their own in-house counsel, because they may be governed by different sets of case law. In response to a question, he expressed the opinion that project directors are not well informed on this. Board members emphasized the importance of leadership in making progress on HRD objectives.
AGENDA ITEM 14: NSB Strategic Plan
The Chairman reminded members that at the February 1998 Board retreat it was decided to develop a NSB strategic plan. At the Executive Committee in March 1998, the development of a plan was postponed pending the May meeting elections for new Board officers. At the July Executive Committee meeting a draft plan was reviewed and the committee agreed to distribute the draft to the full Board for comment. He explained that the plan would be revised to accommodate comments received from members and information from today's presentations. It would be recirculated to the Board for comment in preparation for further discussion by the Executive Committee at its October meeting, and one or two additional drafts would be circulated to the full Board for comment prior to the November Board meeting.
AGENDA ITEM 15: Reports from Committees
a. Audit & Oversight (A&O)
The Committee meeting was cancelled and rescheduled to a conference call in September (date and time to be determined).
b. Education & Human Resources
Dr. Suzuki, Chair, EHR Committee, reported that the committee heard a report from the Science & Engineering Indicators-2000 committee (see Agenda Item 11, above). The Committee was updated on the EHR field hearings held in Los Angeles and Chicago and on the upcoming hearing scheduled in October in Puerto Rico. Dr. Suzuki noted that six NSB members attended the hearing in Los Angeles on Informal Science Education, seven had attended the Chicago hearing on K-12 Education, and eight planned to attend the Puerto Rico hearing. He noted the value and importance of going into the field to discuss with participants the impacts of NSF funded projects. The Committee heard a report from the Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement, Chaired by Dr. Gaillard. The NSB release responding to the TIMSS report was mentioned and plans for the preparation of a follow-up report were described.
In Executive Session the Committee discussed future directions, including appropriate areas identified in the NSB Strategic Plan, human resource development issues, including diversity in the science and engineering workforce, the validity of the SAT and GRE tests, the role of international students in American higher education and in the science and engineering enterprise, reform of urban K-12 education, and for the long term, research on learning and research on the impact of technology on learning. The committee also discussed the opportunities for collaboration between NSF and the Department of Education and foundations in K-12 education to leverage NSF funding. Finally, the committee discussed outreach to the broader public to showcase successes in K-12 education and to disseminate model curricula, and to provide recognition to K-12 teachers.
c. Executive Committee
Dr. Colwell, Chair, Executive Committee reported that the committee had an update on the status of the FY 1999 budget and a substantive discussion on the NSF draft budget for FY 2000. Under the authority delegated to it by the Board, the committee approved the proposed NSF Fiscal Year 2000 budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (NSB/EC-98-32) and the proposed budget request for the Office of the Inspector General for Fiscal Year 2000 to the OMB (NSB/EC-98-34).
d. Committee on Programs & Plans
Dr. Armstrong, Chair, Committee on Programs & Plans (CPP) reported that the Committee reviewed and approved two projects as being ready for consideration in a future budget request, Polar Support Aircraft Upgrade and the High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER), and funding for an upgrade of the Polar Support Aircraft, which is required for the Antarctic research programs.
The Committee received reports of the earlier meetings of the Task Forces on the Environment and on Polar Issues Task Force. Dr. Lubchenco, chair, Task Force on the Environment, reported that the Task Force is committed to reporting to the Board by May on its planned review of the NSF portfolio in this area. Dr. Washington, Chairman, Task Force on Polar Issues, reported on discussions of LC-130 conversions for Air National Guard piloting, future plans for the Arctic programs, and US-Japan cooperation in global climate change research. He then called on Dr. Hunt to elaborate on the former two subjects and on Dr. Corell for the latter.
The Committee received an overview of the 1998 Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) competition and then reviewed and approved a recommended award to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Materials Research Science and Engineering Center.
The Committee also reviewed and approved the recommended award to Stanford University, Cornell University, the University of California at Santa Barbara, Pennsylvania State University and Howard University for the support of the National Nanofabrication Users' Network.
The Committee reviewed and approved a recommended award to the consortium of Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California at Berkeley for Sequencing the Arabidopsis Genome, and a recommended award to The Institute for Genomic Research for Sequencing of Arabidopsis Chromosome 2 (and beyond), and Development of Resources for Arabidopsis Genome Analysis, respectively.
The Committee would use the time at the November meeting to discuss larger issues involving Board oversight of the Foundation's programs. To provide adequate time for such reviews, the Committee decided to undertake standard items of committee business in teleconferences.
CPP Task Force on the Environment
Dr. Lubchenco, Chair, reported that the meeting began The Task Force reviewed its charge "to provide guidance to the Foundation in defining the scope of its role with respect to environmental research, education, and assessment and to submit its recommendation to the Board no later than the May 1999 meeting." Members heard a presentation by Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Program Director, Inorganic, Bioinorganic & Organometallic, Chemistry Division, Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) on current broad cross-agency activities covered under NSF's Life and Earth's Environment (LEE) program. Members discussed previously published and ongoing policy studies concerning the environment, and asked staff to develop a list of such materials and to provide appropriate materials for background to the Task Force. Members identified several questions to be answered: Is NSF funding the most appropriate programs at the right level? What are the gaps in research? What are the priorities for areas not now being funded? Are activities organized and integrated most effectively? Dr. Lubchenco explained that the Task Force intended to look across the broad Federal, as well as NSF, portfolio of environmental research, education and assessment, also acknowledging that these are international issues as well.
CPP Task Force on Polar Issues (PI)
Dr. Washington, Chair, PI, reported that in addition to the briefing on the conversion of an additional C-130 aircraft for polar support in a future NSF budget, the committee heard a report from Dr. Thomas Pyle, Arctic Science Section, Office of Polar Programs, on preliminary plans for Antarctic logistics support, should NSF receive additional funds which have been added to the FY 1999 budget in the Senate.
e. NSB 50th Anniversary Task Force
Dr. Rubin, Chair, reported that the committee had heard from Julia Moore, Director, Office of Legislative & Public Affairs, on the plans for programmatic activities for a national individual science and engineering essay content for children, targeting middle and high school students. The Task Force also discussed ideas for the Board's 50th anniversary celebration in December 2000. She noted that the NSF 50th anniversary advisory committee, chaired by Dr. H. Guyford Stever, former NSF Director, will holds the first meeting on October 15-16.
AGENDA ITEM 16: Other Business
There was no other business and the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
Susan E. Fannoney
Back to NSB Meetings