NSB Logo

National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
May 6-8, 1998

Members Present:

Richard N. Zare, Chairman
Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair
John A. White, Jr.
John A. Armstrong
F. Albert Cotton*
Mary K. Gaillard
Sanford D. Greenberg
M.R.C. Greenwood
Charles E. Hess
John E. Hopcroft
Stanley V. Jaskolski*
Eamon M. Kelly
Jane Lubchenco
Shirley M. Malcom
Eve L. Menger
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan
James L. Powell
Frank H. T. Rhodes
Ian M. Ross
Bob H. Suzuki
Richard Tapia
Warren M. Washington

Neal F. Lane, Director

Members Absent:
Vera C. Rubin
Robert M. Solow



*Attended Thursday only.

Note: The Board, at its 349th meeting, August 12-13, approved the Provisional Minutes of the Open Session of the 348th meeting.

The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 9:35 a.m. on Thursday, May 7, 1998 with Dr. Diana Natalicio, Vice Chair of the NSB, presiding (Agenda NSB-98-100). Dr. Natalicio announced that Chairman Richard Zare and the NSF Director would be absent during the morning session due to a conflict in schedule with a hearing on the NSF budget before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Presentation on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

Dr. Natalicio introduced Dr. William Schmidt, Professor, College of Education, Michigan State University and National Research Coordinator and Executive Director of the U.S. National Center that oversees participation of the U.S. in the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)-sponsored Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). (A copy of his biographical sketch is appended at Attachment A.)

Dr. Schmidt’s presentation focused on the findings of TIMSS, the biggest international study of its kind ever done, involving about 50 countries. There were three study populations – roughly 4th, 8th, and 12th grade. The 12th grade cohort was defined as the grade at which students leave secondary school to go to the world of work or on to higher education. He summarized U.S. performance for all three cohorts. At the 4th grade level U.S. students, in both mathematics and science, were above the international average and very close in science to the Governors’ and the President’s goal of being number one in the world by the year 2000 in science. In the 8th grade comparison U.S. students performed at about the international average. For 12th grade students, comparative performance of U.S. students dropped from to the bottom of the international distribution, both for the general population and the population of students taking the most advanced mathematics and science courses. The U.S. was the only country to drop from the very top to about average from the fourth to eighth grades. This decline focuses attention on the middle school years for mathematics and science education. The most startling of all the TIMSS results is that even our best students – the top 2-3 percent – are at the bottom of the distribution. When compared to the 20 percent of students in other countries in that advanced track, the one percent of U.S. students who take advanced placement (AP) physics also end up below the international average. Dr. Schmidt argued that these results show that the American education system is not only failing the average student but the very best students as well. It is a systemic problem requiring a systemic solution.

Dr. Schmidt reviewed other findings on international comparisons of the content of for mathematics and science for the three cohorts. He argued that what is taught in U.S. schools helps us to understand our students’ performance in TIMSS. These comparisons revealed:

· Curriculum: Different countries excel in different areas of science, with their performances correlated with the kinds of science emphasized in their respective curricula. While no country is number one in all areas, the U.S. failed to achieve first place standing in any area of science or mathematics at the 8th grade level. The TIMSS line-by-line analysis of 1500 textbooks and frameworks from all participating countries revealed that U.S. texts exceed all other countries’ texts in the number of topics covered. U.S. curriculum frameworks are unfocused, highly repetitive lists of topics for teachers. The 4th grade mathematics curriculum parallels the rest of the world. But in middle school mathematics, instead of teaching students algebra and geometry like other countries, U.S. students are taught arithmetic. In science, other nations teach physics and chemistry; in the U.S. students continue with earth science and life science. By 12th grade, only 20 percent of U.S. students have gone beyond geometry. Dr. Schmidt argued that the U.S. needs a curriculum that is focused, coherent, non-repetitive, and rigorous, especially during middle school to challenge students.

· Teachers: U.S. teachers’ substantive knowledge needs improvement. To improve teacher preparation requires a defined curriculum, that is not now available. U.S. universities need a better definition of what is really important in science to prepare future teachers. Professional development for teachers needs to help them deal with substance in their classrooms, not process.

· Students: Almost every other nation of the world teaches the same mathematics to all 8th grade students. The U.S. differentiates students into a wide range of choices, some of which preclude them from taking more advanced courses needed for university level work or certain careers. The U.S. system does not define a common learning goal for all students. As a result, U.S. student performance variance is attributable to schools, classrooms, or tracks, rather than individual variation, as in most other countries.

Dr. Schmidt argued that the performance of U.S. students in mathematics and science needs to be attacked systemically by articulating a vision of what all children need to know at every grade level, in a set of national standards developed by the states working together. The alternative is to cede control of the curriculum to textbook writers and standardized testing organizations.

Board Discussion

In response to a question from Dr. Tapia on why teachers receive their professional development in education schools rather than in schools of mathematics or science, Schmidt agreed that teachers do not as a rule have strong substantive knowledge in science and mathematics and that there needs to be more cooperation in the university environment among schools in these areas. Dr. Powell commented that the Board, as the Nation’s Science Board, should focus on making a strong, simple, clear statement. The most important point would be to affirm the validity of the TIMSS results and that poor performance of U.S. students in mathematics and science is a systemic problem, not individual student failure.

Dr. Suzuki asked why the top American students who go on to higher education and do well, becoming world-class performers in science and mathematics, even though even the best perform poorly in international comparisons at precollege levels. He noted that foreign students are drawn to the U.S. higher education system because it fosters creativity. Dr. Schmidt replied that in order to be creative, one must have substantive knowledge, and that a creativity-fostering environment is insufficient by itself. He suggested as a possible explanation that American universities may compensate for shortcomings in students’ early education by focusing on serious scholars who are dedicated to their disciplines and involved in research. Many students who might have done well are discouraged from participating in science and mathematics in college by their poor experience at earlier grades.

In response to a question from Dr. Armstrong about the superficiality of mathematics and science standards, Schmidt said that standards developed by National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) all attempt to improve the coherence of the curriculum by organizing it around major concepts. Most countries, by the end of grade 12 or 13, have covered the same number of topics. The U.S. is not covering more than other nations, just trying to do everything in every grade. In Scandinavian countries, students study physics in 10th, 11th, and 12th grades – building depth by focusing on different topics in physics each year. Dr. Schmidt noted that in the United States, the State of Texas science standards have such focus.

Dr. Cotton questioned Dr. Schmidt’s statement that local control is part of the problem of the U.S. education system, since textbooks that guide what is taught in classes come from outside the local school system. Dr. Schmidt noted that, because there is little agreement among localities on curricula, textbook writers cover all possible topics so that they can sell their texts to a national customer base. When school districts purchase the books, many teachers try to teach all topics covered. A national set of standards would result in a more focused text as a framework for teaching.

Dr. Malcom noted Dr. Schmidt’s observation that once standards needed for K-12 are defined the standards K-12 teachers and higher education curricula for teachers are also, de facto, defined. She argued that, without a licensing and certification process that assures that teachers are able to meet standards that enable them to teach students what they are expected to know, students will not be given an adequate opportunity to learn. This is a difficult issue, both for higher education and for NSF systemic reform efforts. Until the content knowledge needed by middle grade teachers is defined, there is a problem. On a positive note, she pointed out one area where the U.S. system is performing well in international comparisons, namely that TIMSS shows no gender gap in the performance of students at 4th and 8th grades in the U.S. Racial and ethnic differences in performance after the first few years are still disappointing, however.

Dr. Schmidt responded that, for example, in the various algebra tracks, there is a “dumbing down” of the curriculum that is related to social class, race, and ethnicity, i.e., algebra in some U.S. schools, especially in disadvantaged areas, is not what most countries teach as algebra. He agreed that the Nation needs to decide whether middle school is to be the end of elementary school or the beginning of secondary school in defining certification requirements for teachers.

Replying to Dr. Lubchenco’s request for an explanation for the above-average performance of U.S. students at 4th grade, Dr. Schmidt noted that, though the U.S. is not at the top in mathematics for those grades, it performs well. The U.S. 3rd and 4th grade curriculum corresponds to the curricula used in other countries. He noted that NCTM has pushed geometry, statistics, and data analysis in the early grades and speculated that it seems to be making a difference at the 4th grade level. In science, the U.S. was also near the top, perhaps due to a relatively early start in teaching science compared to other countries, science television shows, and museums with programs targeted at young children. In mathematics, the U.S. is not at the top for those grades.

In response to Dr. Greenwood’s comment that in her experience some teachers select a subset of items from the curriculum and textbook to teach, Dr. Schmidt responded that TIMSS teacher data show that very few teachers follow that procedure, and those who do tend to be in more affluent districts that attract better quality teachers. With respect to another question by Dr. Greenwood, Dr. Schmidt noted that TIMSS did not collect indicators of classroom discipline but that schools did report discipline-related data. For those measures, U.S. schools report more tardiness and absenteeism than most other nations.

Responding to a question from Dr. Ross on the role of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), Dr. Schmidt noted that the SAT covers thousands of topics in a very shallow fashion. The broadness of the SAT creates an incentive for schools and teachers to follow a broad, shallow curriculum. European countries test for achievement rather than general aptitude and exams feature 3-5 questions that students answer in depth.

Responding to questions from Dr. Washington, Dr. Schmidt reported that U.S. statistics show remarkably large movement of students between school districts compared to other countries. He concluded that this transience underscores the need for national curriculum standards, since children who move from place to place miss certain topics and repeat others. Extracurricular courses may have some effect, but the school is the primary determinant of performance.

Responding to a question from Dr. Rhodes on the obstacles to achieving some kind of national standards, Dr. Schmidt noted his meetings with the President, the 35 Republican governors, members of Congress, State legislators and school boards on this issue, and expressed the opinion that the chief obstacle is the sentiment among parents and local school districts that the Federal government should not be involved in setting the curriculum. However, he noted, once the case for standards is presented as a need for a national consensus so that children will not be shortchanged in their education, resistance to national standards declines. Dr. Schmidt concluded that the Board, as a prestigious, nonpartisan group of scientists, could be effective if it chose to speak on these issues. He noted ongoing efforts among states and private corporations to cooperate on these issues.

Board members thanked Dr. Schmidt for his excellent presentation.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Science & Engineering Indicators Web Demonstration

Dr. Zare, NSB Chairman, called on Dr. Jeanne E. Griffiths, Director, Division for Science Resources Studies (SRS), Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate, to introduce the demonstration. Dr. Griffiths stated that the 1993 edition of Indicators was one of the first products that NSF put up on the Web. There have been many advances since then. She introduced Mr. John Gawalt, Senior Analyst, Information Services Group, SRS, to give a demonstration of Indicators-1998 on the Web.

Mr. Gawalt noted that the Indicators-1998 will have three different versions available on the Web: enhanced HTML that will take advantage of the most advanced Web technologies; accessible HTML that will be a standard HTML document designed in accordance to specifications from the World Wide Web Consortium that will allow individuals who have limited facilities or have disabilities to access the Indicators; and a PDF version that can be downloaded as a near exact copy of the printed Indicators. Mr. Gawalt demonstrated, through the actual Web site, how individuals would access Indicators and the menus, links and other information available to guide a user. He provided a demonstration of how tables and graphs can be downloaded into specific spreadsheet formats (e.g., Excel) and retained on the user’s computer for future reference. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Gawalt stressed that SRS had been very careful to follow standards and cross-test on different platforms. Indicators is available in print and CD versions as well as Web. The future Web-accessible Indicators for the year 2000 will take advantage of further improvements in Web technology.

AGENDA ITEM 5: NOVA Demonstration

The Acting Chairman introduced Ms. Paula Apsell, Executive Producer, NOVA, WGBH-TV, Boston, Massachusetts and members of NOVA staff for a demonstration on NOVA's outreach and innovations for science education through convergence of television and the Internet. Ms. Apsell expressed thanks to the scientific community and the National Science Board for the NSB Public Service Award, presented to NOVA at the NSB awards ceremony on May 6, 1998. She commented on the synergy between science, television and science education, and noted that NOVA has always been committed to making programs useful for both students and a general audience. She noted, however, that programs of 52 minutes duration do not easily fit into classroom periods and often defy subject area classification. Teachers nonetheless do frequently use NOVA in the classroom and approximately 65,000 teachers subscribe to NOVA’s teacher’s guide. NOVA television shows help to dispel negative stereotypes of science created by the mass media and bring it into the mainstream culture, creating a fertile environment for science education to occur.

Ms. Julie Benia described how NOVA and WGBTV/Boston continue to spark interest in science during the school years and throughout life. As an example of NOVA educational innovations, she discussed the interactive media associated with the 10-hour Science Odyssey series. It included a broadcast component, hosted by Charles Osgood, and a wide range of resources to be used by educators, youth and adults throughout the country and accessible by people with different learning styles and backgrounds, especially those groups traditionally underrepresented in the sciences. NOVA worked with AAAS, Association of Science Technology Centers, science museums, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, National Science Teachers Association, and the Public Library Association. One hundred and twenty-five community sites were chosen around the country to target with materials that provide hands-on/minds-on activities.

Ms. Annie Valva, Director of Technology for Interactive Projects at WGBH-TV, described the Worldwide Web site for Science Odyssey and for NOVA On-line, and described the Mt. Everest PBS online adventure, in which the television camera followed the IMAX crew in May 1996 to begin the four-week trek up Mt. Everest. She emphasized the importance of viewing the television and the Web as one package, with different user and viewer experiences combined. At present, 98-99% of Americans have at least one television set and between 40-42% of U.S. households have at least one personal computer. These two media are converging. Ms. Valva noted that between NOVA and Odyssey, there are approximately 3800 pages on the Worldwide Website that include images, teacher guides, histories behind the shows, and other research sites.

Ms. Valva provided a demonstration of interactive television allowing home audiences to participate by telephone during and after the broadcast. She invited Board members to access some of the 35 sites on the NOVA Web site. In closing, Ms. Valva provided an overview of interactive digital television using a Web-TV box that sits on a television, has a portable keyboard, and remote control keyboard. Through the TV box the television can be used as a computer. With this technology teachers, or others, will be able to tape programs, retain the various links to other Web site or information links, and use those tapes as classroom tools.

The Chairman recessed the meeting at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened the Open Session at 2:55:p.m.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Minutes, February 1998 Meeting

The Board unanimously APPROVED the Provisional Open Session Minutes of the

February 25-27, 1998 meeting (NSB-98-52, Board book, Tab G).

AGENDA ITEM 10: Closed Session Agenda Items for August 1998

The Chairman reviewed the Closed Session Agenda items and presented a resolution to close portions of the August 1998 meeting (NSB-98-77, Board book, Tab H). The Board’s action on the proposed resolution and certification is attached to these minutes as Appendix B.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Chairman’s Report

a. Election of New Officers

The Chairman announced that Dr. Eamon M. Kelly and Dr. Diana S. Natalicio were elected as Chair and Vice Chair, respectively, for terms to expire on May 10, 2000.

b. NSB Executive Committee

The Chairman announced that Drs. Kelly and Natalicio were elected as members of the Executive Committee for terms expiring on May 10, 2000. Drs. Mitchell-Kernan and Washington were elected as members of the Executive Committee for one year for the unexpired terms vacated by Drs. Hess and Malcom, who had completed their terms on the Board.

c. Inspector General

The Chairman called on Dr. Hess, Chairman, Audit & Oversight Committee, to introduce the new Acting Inspector General.

Dr. Hess announced that Mr. Philip Sunshine assumed the position of Acting Inspector General on April 12. Mr. Sunshine received his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1980. Before coming to NSF, he was a Senior Attorney for Case Development at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special

Investigations. Since 1989 he has served as Deputy IG, where he supervised the audit and investigatory work.

d. Dr. Daryl Chubin

The Chairman announced that Dr. Daryl Chubin assumed a detail as Senior Policy Associate in the NSB Office, on March 16, with particular responsibility for assisting the Board and its Committee on Education and Human Resources (EHR) on policy issues related to human resources development in science and engineering. Since September 1993, Dr. Chubin served as Director, Division for Research, Evaluation and Communication in the EHR Directorate. During 1997 he served on detail as Assistant Director for Social and Behavioral Sciences and Education at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

e. NSB Committees

The Chairman discharged the following committees:

(1) Task Force on the February 1998 Retreat, chaired by Dr. Suzuki, with Drs. Natalicio

and White as members.

(2) Task Force on Industry Reliance on Publicly-Funded Research, chaired by Dr. Jaskolski, with members Drs. Armstrong and Mitchell-Kernan.

(3) Task Force on the October 1997 NSB Meeting, chaired by Dr. Kelly, with members Drs. Cotton, Greenwood, Natalicio, and Tapia.

(4) Task Force on Investment in Science and Engineering, chaired by Dr. Greenberg, with members Drs. Malcom, Rhodes, and Solow.

(5) Ad Hoc Committee on the Vannevar Bush Award, chaired by Dr. Greenwood, with

Drs. Cotton and Ross as members.

The Chairman announced the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on NSB Nominations-Class of 2006, with Dr. Menger as Chair. Drs. Armstrong, Greenwood and Washington will serve as members, with Mrs. Susan Fannoney, NSB Office, as Executive Secretary.

AGENDA ITEM 12: Director’s Report

a. NSF Staff

The Director welcomed Mr. Philip Sunshine as Acting Inspector General.

The Director announced that Dr. Eugene Wong, University of California at Berkeley, would assume the position of Assistant Director for Engineering on June 15. In addition to his position at the University of California, Dr. Wong is Chief Scientist at Vision Software Tools, Inc. He was chairman of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at Berkeley from 1985-1989, Associate Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1990-1993, and Vice President for R&D at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology from 1994-1996. Dr. Wong received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in electrical engineering at Princeton University and continued his studies as a NSF Postdoctoral Fellow at Cambridge University. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering.

b. Presidential Rank Awards

The Director stated that on May 5 Vice President Gore announced the Presidential Rank Awards that are given for sustained, high quality accomplishments by career members of the Senior Executive Service. Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, NSF General Counsel, received the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award.

c. NSF Distinguished Public Service Award

The Director announced that he had presented the NSF Distinguished Public Service Award to Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President for Science & Technology and Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy, at a luncheon in his honor on April 22 attended by members of the NSF Director’s Policy Group. Dr. Gibbons was recognized for “his distinguished leadership of science and his contributions to international science and technology collaborations.”

d. Congress

(1) Supplemental Appropriations Act.

The Director reported that Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act. The Act contains a provision that would provide close to $60M to NSF to support participation in the interagency Next Generation Internet Program and related networking activities. The funds will come from the intellectual infrastructure fund established by the collection of fees for domain name registration. NSF already received $23M but was unable to spend the funds because of a court order. NSF will be working with the Department of Justice regarding resolution of the court order so that the funds can be expended.

(2) NSF Authorization

Since the Senator Labor Committee marked up its version of the FY 1998-1999 NSF authorization bill last fall, the staff of the Commerce Committee, Labor Committee and House Science Committee have been working to complete a 2-3 year NSF authorization bill that would provide an authorization for the FY 1999 budget request. The NSF bill could go to the Senate floor within the next several weeks, after which the House would act on the bill and forward it to the President. The Director noted that if all goes well, this would be the first NSF authorization bill enacted into law since 1989.

(3) Hearings

The Director reported that he and Dr. Rubin appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on March 24. Some of the questions concerned priority setting and the proposed National Institute on the Environment (NIE).

During the third week in April the Director and Dr. Hopcroft testified before the House Basic Research Subcommittee on the FY 1999 budget request. Priority setting, the NIE proposal, domain names, Next Generation Internet, undergraduate education, and systemic reform in math and science education were discussed.

On Thursday, May 7, Dr. Zare and the Director testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the NSF FY 1999 budget request. The hearing went well, although it is clear that the budget will be tight.

(4) National Institute on the Environment (NIE)

The Director thanked the Board for its input and guidance on the NSF response to the Congressional request concerning the proposal to establish an NIE within NSF. NSF is an integral part of the Federal effort to establish a strong foundation for decision making on environmental issues. Several areas in which the NSF can make significant contributions have been incorporated into the FY 1999 budget request under the broad theme of Life in Earth’s Environment (LEE). NSF is an active participant in the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The response to the proposal was developed in the context of NSF’s own mission goals and strategies and in the broader framework of the Federal involvement in environmental research. Because of the extent of multi-agency involvement in environmental issues, any organization carrying out the functions of the proposed NIE would have to operate through a web of interconnections that would preclude a stand-alone isolated entity, whether as part of NSF or as a separate agency. Rather than duplicate existing management structures and increasing costs, existing mechanisms for priority setting and coordination, such as with the National Science and Technology Council should be strengthened.

The Director stated that he believes the NSF is well suited to take on additional responsibilities in disciplinary and interdisciplinary research, on-line information dissemination, and education and training, building on current programs. In planning for FY 2000 and beyond, the Foundation will have to consider how to develop focused approaches to activities in the environmental arena when setting agency priorities and interacting with other agencies through the NSTC process.

e. National Science & Technology Week

The Director stated that the April 26-May 2 National Science & Technology Week theme of “Polar Connections” was a wonderful success. More than 50 events were held across the country at science centers, schools, 4H Clubs, natural history museums and the National Press Club, to bring science to life in new ways for the public. The Director participated in an event in Washington for more than 400 high school students. More than 135,000 booklets and packets featuring do-it-yourself projects and information on role model scientists and their research were distributed across the country. Time and Discover magazine ran feature articles and editorials and a column in Parade Magazine featured NSF’s information line, which generated over 6,000 additional requests for the learning activities booklet, and thousands of Web site hits. The Board viewed a short video of an educational public service announcement widely distributed on the Public Television Network.

AGENDA ITEM 13: Executive Committee Annual Report

In accordance with the requirements of Section 7(d) of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, Dr. Lane, Chairman, NSB Executive Committee, submitted the annual report of the Executive Committee (NSB/EC-98-18, Board Book, Tab I). Dr. Lane noted that the Committee met nine times and took five actions. The actions included the approval of the NSF budget, amendment of Criterion 2 of the new NSF merit review criteria, approval of a protocol for Board elections, revised format on an experimental basis for the annual NSB awards event, and approval of a resolution on a proposed National Institute for the Environment.

AGENDA ITEM 14: NSB Annual Calendar

The Chairman asked Dr. Cehelsky to report on the proposed calendar of Board meetings for 1999. Dr. Cehelsky noted that February would be the NSB policy meeting held off-site from the NSF and coupled with the NSB retreat, a meeting in March had been added, and the meeting in October was no longer scheduled. The calendar and resolution were unanimously adopted and are attached to these minutes as Appendix C.


The Chairman noted that pursuant to discussion at the February 1998 NSB meeting (see Agenda Item 10c, NSB-98-52), the Board began developing a distinctive look for Board reports, press releases, and letterhead. Members were provided sample Board logos and letterhead for consideration. In response to a question from the Director, the Chairman stated that “National Science Foundation” would be incorporated into both logo and letterhead. After discussion the Board voted as follows:

The Board adopted a new National Science Board logo (sample attached to the minutes at Appendix D.)

AGENDA ITEM 16: Final Report of the NSB Chairman

The Chairman presented his report on the accomplishments of the Board during his term (May 1996-May 1998). A copy is appended to these minutes as Attachment E. The Chairman’s report recounted the development of a significant number of important NSB reports, creation of a new NSF Public Service Award, successful symposia, and interaction with a large number of individuals representing Congress, other agencies, foundations, and universities.

AGENDA ITEM 17: Committee Reports

The Chairman called for Committee reports.

a. Audit & Oversight (A&O)

Dr. Hess, Chairman, Audit & Oversight (A&O) reported that in regular session a technical (editorial) correction to Important Notice 91 was provided by staff and there were no objections to its incorporation. Mr. Joseph Kull, Director, Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management, provided an update on the NSF financial statements and the FY 1997 audit and noted that there would be four additional required financial statements for FY 1998.

Dr. Judith Sunley, Assistant to the Director for Science Policy & Planning, provided an update on the Government Performance & Results Act (GPRA) developments. She noted that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had provided NSF with authorization to use the alternative form to express its qualitative performance goals. She also noted that the Congressional assessments of NSF’s performance plan places NSF in the upper third of all agencies, above most other science agencies. Dr. Sunley also provided an update on the development of the Federal Research Misconduct Policy. Another formal draft has not yet been circulated among agencies.

Dr. Hess reported that in the closed supervisory session the Committee discussed the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG’s) Semiannual Report for the period ending March 31, 1998. The Committee instructed the Director's liaison to prepare the NSB’s Management Report, which would include the tables required by the IG Act and indicate that the NSB had no substantive disagreements with the Semiannual Report, and to transmit the report to the Congress on or before May 30, 1998.

Dr. Hess thanked the Executive Secretaries, Dr. Joanna Rom, Director, Division of Grants and Agreements, BFA, and Dr. James Zwolenik, Assistant Inspector General for Oversight, Office of

Oversight, OIG; NSF Liaison Dr. Sunley; and all of the members of the Committee: Drs. Jaskolski, Menger, Rhodes, White, and Zare, for their dedication to the Committee’s work.

Dr. Lane thanked Dr. Hess and the other Committee members for an extraordinary job. He noted that from the NSF management point of view the undertaking of the Committee is difficult because the issues are often complex and require considerable amounts of homework, briefing and analysis.

b. Education & Human Resources (EHR)

Dr. Malcom, Chair, Education & Human Resources Committee (EHR), reported that the Committee recommended to the Board for approval in Closed Session two Urban Systemic Initiative Awards.

The Committee reflected on how the program has matured over time and explored issues related to the impact of the planning process on the submitting school systems and how the competition has enabled the school systems to coordinate the planning process.

The Committee Chair called on Dr. Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director, EHR Directorate, to expand on the Committee’s discussion on the progress being made, with specific focus on student achievement. Dr. Williams announced that on Friday, May 8, the Detroit Free Press would publish a major story on the performance of the Detroit Public School Systems in all subjects. The report will state that fourth graders in mathematics the students in the Detroit Public School System increased their performance by 15.9% over 1997. This is an increase from 47.6 to 64.9%, or two-thirds of the fourth graders above proficiency, which exceeds the state average. This improvement reflects the power of sustained engagement of a standards-based, rigorous, coherent curriculum.

Dr. Malcom also reported that the Committee was briefed on the Foundation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Initiative and on minority graduate education. The Committee was briefed on the upcoming EHR hearings (see also NSB-98-52, Agenda Item 13b), with the first to be held on May 29 in Los Angeles on informal science education. The second hearing will be held in July in Chicago, and the third in October in Puerto Rico. The Committee heard a report from the Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement (TIMSS), to be discussed in detail later by Dr. Gaillard (see subparagraph below).

Dr. Malcom thanked Committee Vice Chair Dr. Suzuki and the previous Committee Chair Dr. Powell for their staunch support in the work of the Committee. She noted that the Committee has ventured beyond just the EHR Directorate to think more broadly about the education and human resources issues of the Foundation. She thanked Executive Secretary Dr. George Rubottom, Program Director, Chemistry Division, Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS); NSF Liaison Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director, EHR; Dr. Bennett Bertenthal, Assistant Director, SBE; and others who worked with the Committee over the past years.

EHR Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators-1998

Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chairman, Science & Engineering Indicators-1998 Committee, reported that advanced, restricted distribution copies of Indicators-1998 would be available within the next several weeks. The new Web version of Indicators-1998 would be of tremendous value to the community and could broaden the group of readers considerably. The Committee discussed problems that were encountered and some possible resolutions: (1) begin initial planning discussions earlier for the Indicators-2000, perhaps at the August 1998 NSB meeting; (2) plan for the long-term Indicators; and (3) consider new Web technology and how it could transform future volumes. Also discussed was a historical focus for Indicators- 2000 to look at science and engineering resources from 1950 to the present. At the August meeting the Committee will have a report from Science Resources Studies staff on users and uses of Indicators.

Dr. Greenwood applauded the Indicators-1998 Committee and NSF staff for the development of a more user-friendly product, with substantially more information.

EHR Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement (TIMSS)

Dr. Gaillard, Task Force chair, distributed a 3-page discussion document on the proposed structure of a Board report. The starting point for the report would be the TIMSS results, to capitalize on the national attention they have received. She noted that the audience to be addressed would be very broad, including all those who would be involved in reform of the education system: the higher education community, Federal agencies, policymakers, administrators, teachers, parents, and local communities. Two major themes for the report were emphasis on content-based math and science education, and linkages between those who produce content knowledge and those who train, hire, and accredit teachers. The Task Force requested a sense of the Board on whether to continue to develop a statement on U.S. student achievement in mathematics and science and to provide guidance to the Task Force on the form of the statement. She noted that the more detailed draft report distributed to the Board was not ready for discussion.

Dr. Powell urged the Board to make a strong statement concerning the national crisis in science and mathematics education. Dr. Malcom further noted the need to assert that content and curriculum matter, and that a coherent vision of what Americans need to know in science and mathematics across localities nationwide is not antithetical to local control. She also argued that the scientific community needs to be part of the discussion of what that content ought to be. Dr. Rhodes urged the task force to continue and further urged that it focus on making one major point, the endorsement of national standards. He pointed out that academic departments, professional associations, disciplines, universities, the Science Board itself are part of the problem, pumping tens of millions of dollars into a system that is not performing even adequately. He urged that the Board acknowledge this in its statement.

Drs. Jaskolski, Lubchenco, and Hopcroft expressed concern about the audience and objectives to be addressed by the statement, and urged that the statement be kept simple for a broad audience. Dr. Hopcroft further urged that, if the purpose is to tell the audience how to improve the system, that the paper focus on a small number of recommendations, which can be firmly endorsed by the Board, with good evidence that they would work. Dr. Lane drew attention to the uniquely broad responsibilities of the Board for review and approval of programs covering the full range of education, from pre-K through postdoctoral training. He agreed that the Board statement should be focused if it is to be credible and urged that the statement be bold and articulate how the Foundation can address in new ways some of the recommendations offered. He noted that NSF programs have considerable leverage in academia and thus offer an opportunity to influence higher education.

Dr. Gaillard expressed her opinion that “standards” should not be avoided, while being clear that it is not Federal standards but national standards that are proposed. She further argued for tying recommendations to strategies for implementation.

Dr. Suzuki suggested that the Board examine the impact of the Scholastic Aptitude Test on education, noting Dr. Schmidt’s contention that the test encourages teachers to teach broadly but without depth—resulting in learning a “mile wide, inch deep”. Dr. Menger urged the Task Force to continue, and identified two points to include based on the morning discussion: 1) curriculum counts, and 2) curriculum design needs to be guided by a vision for the objectives of science and mathematics education. She also argued that local schools collectively create a national resource, and for that reason there is a need for coherence nationwide in the science and mathematics curriculum.

Dr. Greenwood suggested a possible role for the Board, professional societies, and the Academy would be to insure entrance requirements at institutions of higher education reflect national standards for science and mathematics knowledge. She noted that a great deal is at stake for academic institutions with regard to quality of the student body and faculty, which should encourage them to contribute to addressing this crisis. She also drew attention to the “bimodal” approach of NSF programs, focusing on the teachers and K-12 system at one end of the spectrum, and the research universities at the other, without much attention to the institutions that produce the K-12 teachers. She urged that, if the Board wants to have an impact on teacher training, the comprehensive universities that train most of them need to be drawn into the discussion.

Dr. Greenwood noted that there are already standards which can be drawn upon, such as the science standards developed by the National Academy of Science. She further noted that there is an international consensus on what is important in content, particularly in mathematics. She argued that, for the latter, the issue is not content but how it should be taught—whether over and over again, touching briefly on all topics, or parsed into limited areas and taught in depth and sequentially, or some other process. She also observed Dr. Schmidt’s comment at his earlier presentation that there is a consensus among K-4 educators on what should be covered in the classroom. She argued that that consensus forms an implicit national standard for those grades. The mobility of the U.S. population is also a strong justification for a national consensus on content and curriculum. Dr. Malcom added that the majority of states have developed frameworks for standards that are based on the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards, the AAAS’s 2061 benchmarks, and the Academy of Sciences standards. The issue now is how to implement the standards in actual curricula that reflect the principles that have been framed. She noted that a standards-based curriculum relies for success on appropriate teacher preparation, which is the role of higher education. It is necessary to coordinate components that include what is taught, tested, how teachers are prepared, and expected outcomes, for the standards to be effective.

Dr. Natalicio urged that a simple, straightforward, bold statement be issued quickly, and that it address the issue of standards, and the contribution of local control to the lack of consistency across the country. She further urged that the statement underscore that standards be applied to all children, noting Dr. Schmidt’s comments on the role of tracking in classrooms in poor performance. Dr. Zare endorsed Dr. Natalicio’s comments, and urged that the Board state that the Nation needs a standards-based curriculum, with objectives that can be measured and assessed. The statement should include the concept that standards should not be federally mandated, but rather require cooperation across large units, such as states, since local communities don’t have the resources to define standards.

Dr. Suzuki expressed concern that the Board not be drawn into endorsing national standards when the focus in the curriculum seems to be what makes the difference, according to Dr. Schmidt’s earlier presentation. Dr. Greenwood agreed with Dr. Suzuki’s point on using care in language employed in the Board’s statement, perhaps coining a different term such as “content-specific curriculum.” She noted the need to mention that the TIMSS results are consistent with other data sources; taken together, the Board must conclude that there is a national crisis. Drs. Greenberg and Greenwood urged sensitivity to the political realities involved in these issues, noting that the Board should consider a strategy for testifying on its position in a variety of forums at the federal, state and local levels.

Drs. Kelly and Lubchenco expressed support for a process of quick production and approval of an initial Board statement that would take advantage of heightened public awareness and that would be short and limited to a few items on which the Board can speak with confidence grounded in research and experience. At a later date, the Board could consider the contents of a longer report to address issues in implementation. Dr. Natalicio added that a distribution plan for the statement would need to be developed, drawing on the expertise of the NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs.

Dr. Zare concluded by suggesting that the Task Force first follow Dr. Rhodes suggestion of using a single, simple focus. Second, they should make short recommendations and a short statement, like a press release, to be circulated to the full Board and, in the interest of a timely release, submitted to the Executive committee for approval rather than waiting until the August NSB meeting. The short statement should not address implementation, which should be left for developing in a more in-depth, longer piece.

c. Executive Committee

Dr. Lane, Chairman, Executive Committee reported that there were no action items.

d. Programs & Plans (CPP)

Dr. Hopcroft, Chairman, Committee on Programs & Plans (CPP), reported that in addition to the three items acted on during the Board’s Closed Session, the Committee discussed how major research projects would be brought to CPP in the future. The Committee will eliminate the requirement for the project development plan and ask for an annual briefing and discussion of the major projects under consideration by staff, including those in very early stages.

Dr. Hopcroft thanked the NSF staff who supported the Committee, particularly Executive Secretary Mr. Joseph Kull, Director, BFA; Mr. Thomas Cooley, Executive Officer, BFA; and NSF Liaison Dr. Karl Erb, Senior Science Adviser to the Director. He further thanked members of the Board who served on the Committee, Drs. Armstrong, Gaillard, Greenwood, Ross, Rubin, Solow and Washington.

CPP Task Force on Polar Issues (PI)

Dr. Hess, Chairman, Task Force on Polar Issues, stated that the Committee heard a report from Dr. John Hunt, Acting Director, Office of Polar Programs (OPP), and Mr. Erick Chiang, Head, Polar Research Section, OPP, on the upcoming Lake Vostock Conference. The conference will focus on how to conduct research on the Lake, which researchers believe to contain fresh water below the glacial ice currently covering the lake, without contaminating the Lake.

Dr. Hess thanked Dr. Hunt, his predecessor Dr. Cornelius Sullivan, and Executive Secretary Mr. William P. Neufeld, Science Analyst, Division of Engineering Education and Centers, Engineering Directorate, for their assistance with the Committee’s work.

e. Task Force on NSF’s 50th Anniversary

Dr. Washington, reporting for the Task Force in the absence of Dr. Vera Rubin, its Chair, stated that the Committee heard a report from Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Chairman, NSF 50th Advisory Committee, on how the Committee would function. Dr. Stever reported that letters of invitation to prospective Committee members were mailed and some responses had been received. The Committee will be a cross-section of scientists, industry and government representatives. The first meeting will be held in the fall of 1998. Dr. Stever proposed that the Task Force begin to look through previous NSF annual reports for achievements over the last 50 years. He further suggested that the anniversary celebration look not only at the past, but also toward the future.

AGENDA ITEM 18: Other Business

a. NSB Chairman

Dr. Kelly thanked the members for electing him Chairman of the National Science Board. On behalf of the Board he thanked Dr. Zare for his leadership, noting his capacity for extraordinarily hard work, good humor and moving a very diverse group of personalities in the same direction. Dr. Kelly noted that the accomplishments during Dr. Zare’s tenure will have long-term implications for the Board and the Foundation.

Dr. Lane seconded Dr. Kelly and thanked Dr. Zare for his leadership. He noted that these past two years have shown the critical nature of the Board’s role in the Foundation and that it is in many ways responsible for how the Foundation continues to receive budget increases, enjoy high credibility, and attract and retain outstanding staff. He thanked the chairs of all the Committees and Task Forces, members of the Executive Committee, and congratulated the newly elected officers and Executive Committee members.

b. Speaker of the House

The Chairman called on Mr. Joel Widder, Deputy Director, Office of Legislative & Public Affairs (OLPA), who briefed the Board on logistics for the scheduled visit with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, May 8, 1998.

There was no other business and the meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Susan E. Fannoney

Staff Assistant


Appendix A: Dr. Schmidt’s biographical sketch

Appendix B: Closing portions of the August 1998 meeting

Appendix C: Calendar of Meetings (NSB-98-91)

Appendix D: NSB logo

Appendix E: Chairman’s Report to the NSB (NSB-98-83, revised)

Appendix A to NSB-98-105


Biographical Sketch

William H. Schmidt is Professor in the College of Education at Michigan State University. He serves as the National Research Coordinator and Executive Director of the U.S. National Center that oversees participation of the United States in the IEA sponsored Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).

Dr. Schmidt received his undergraduate degree from Concordia College in River Forrest, Illinois and his Master's and Ph.D. degrees from The University Chicago.

He is past Chairman of the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education and former Acting Dean for Planning and Evaluation in the College of Education at Michigan State University. From 1986-1988, Dr. Schmidt was Head of the NSF Office of Policy Studies and Program Assessment in what is currently the Education & Human Resources Directorate.

Dr. Schmidt is widely published in the education, statistics, and psychology literatures. He co-authored several chapters analyzing results from the IEA's Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS) and the Second International Science Study (SISS) and most recently co-authored several books on the curriculum analysis for mathematics and science based on the TIMSS analysis.


Appendix B to NSB-98-105

(Limited Distribution)

Record of Discussion

348th Meeting

National Science Board

May 6-8, 1998

The Chairman, Executive Committee, presented a list of items to be considered in Closed Session at the August 1998 meeting (NSB-98-77). 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 Executive Committee DETERMINED that the following portions of the meeting of the National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for August 12-14, 1998 shall be closed to the public:

· 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.

· 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.

· Those portions having to do with future budgets not yet submitted by the President to the Congress.

· 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.

Susan E. Fannoney

Staff Assistant

Appendix C to NSB-98-105

Appendix D to NSB-98-105

Appendix E to NSB-98-105






MAY 7, 1998

Winston Churchill said, “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” In that spirit let me describe to you what progress I think the National Science Board has made during the time I was its chairman. To me, the most significant change has been a reaching out by the Board to address issues bigger than the immediate concerns of the National Science Foundation. As you know, the Board has by statute a dual role, namely, to set policy for the National Science Foundation and to report to the President and to Congress on the state of health of the nation's science and engineering enterprise. It is in that second realm, I believe, that the Board has assumed a much larger presence.

NSB Oversight of the National Science Foundation

I will not recite a litany of standard though important activities, such as approval of the NSF budget, work on long-range planning, approval of various large NSF awards and programs, supervision of the Inspector General, approval of the Vannevar Bush and Waterman Award winners, etc. Instead, let me highlight some specific items from NSB's special responsibility to oversee NSF. The Board has taken its responsibilities most seriously, approving several actions of consequence. It has:

  • Revised the criteria for merit review of all NSF proposals, reducing the number from four to two and sending a clear message that what counts, in brief, is a proposal’s intrinsic excellence and impact;

  • Established that the default policy on renewal awards is that all expiring awards be recompeted unless it is judged in the best interest of US science and engineering that they not be;

  • Approved a Science and Technology Centers Program and provided guidelines for its management that stress educational outreach and the creation of partnerships;

  • Approved NSF's participation in the Large Hadron Collider project, which involves multi-agency support of a large facility not located in the US;

  • Approved a major revamping of the nation's supercomputer activities which has broadened from centers to partnerships enlarging the base of supercomputing and the reach of this program;

  • Issued policy guidance on NSF’s role in the assignment of domain names;

  • Participated in a multi-agency discussion of what is scientific misconduct and how misconduct proceedings should be carried out in general;

  • Provided oversight, through an NSB/NSF staff working group, for the development of the NSF Strategic Plan and NSF Performance Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act; and

  • Approved a resolution on the proposed National Institute for the Environment that actively supports the Foundation’s role in fundamental environmental research but does not support a separate, stand-alone organization for this purpose.

Reform of NSB Operations:

We began, under the most able leadership of our Vice-Chair, Diana Natalicio, by significantly revising Board operations, particularly its calendar.

  • We agreed to reduce the number of Board meetings to five and to have one of these meetings each year in a location outside NSF and the Washington, DC area;

  • The Board made an important decision about its organization in addressing NSF responsibilities by agreeing to have non-overlapping memberships in its three standing committees: Audit & Oversight (chaired by Charles Hess), Education & Human Resources (chaired by Shirley Malcom), and Programs & Plans (chaired by John Hopcroft). These standing committees have been put on a comparable footing with various task forces reporting to each standing committee. It is my impression that this division of labor has served us quite well;

  • We delegated additional responsibility to the Executive Committee, specifically, the authority to approve the budget that NSF submits to the Office of Management and Budget each year;

  • We have moved to modernize the NSB meeting procedures, encouraging reliance on information technology to conduct our work; and

  • We have produced an election protocol for filling the positions of Chair, the Vice Chair, and four of the five positions on the Executive Committee.

NSB National Policy Role:

I turn to activities "external" to NSF. To provide a quick summary, we:

  • Established a National Science Board Public Service Award, to be given annually to an individual and to a group who foster the public's understanding of science and technology;

  • Produced a Working Paper on Federal Support of Science Research that called for more understanding of the methodology of priority setting;

  • Held our first off-site policy meeting in Houston, Texas, on the campus of the University of Houston on the subject of the Federal role on graduate and postdoctoral education;

  • Produced a National Science Board Paper entitled “The Federal Role in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education.” This work came out of our meeting in Houston, Texas, and responded to the Presidential Review Directive to contribute to this assessment process. It also came out of the continuing NSB-GUIRR project on Stresses on Research and Education in Higher Education Institutions. This project has gone through two phases and has so far involved a total of 25 universities and colleges that are prominent in science and engineering research and education and that have participated in campus discussions and in one or both national meetings in Washington, DC;

  • Approved a resolution confirming NSB’s intention to prepare analyses ("occasional papers") for input to the process of developing the Federal budget for science and engineering research and education;

  • Prepared and approved for release the paper “Industry Reliance on Publicly Funded Research,” which should be available in the next few weeks;

  • Worked to revise and improve Science & Engineering Indicators, which will also be available in a few weeks;

  • Published a collection of papers delivered at the NSB symposium on the University of the 21st Century, held during the March 1996 NSB meeting at the University of California, Davis, chaired by Dr. Frank Rhodes, just before I became chair;

A good measure of our desire to reach out can be found in the attached Appendix, which lists the invited visitors and speakers we have had at NSB meetings or functions during the past two years. I think that this collection of people is very revealing of our intentions.

We know that it is easy for people to stumble and fall when they seek to follow a new path. In particular, we have become aware that it is awkward for the NSF Director, as a member of the Board, to vote on the clearance and approval of NSB reports on national research and education policy that may affect Federal agencies other than NSF. These considerations have led us to urge the Director to abstain as a matter of principle from such votes. In this regard, we are also developing a separate Board logo (not yet approved) to help distinguish ourselves from NSF in this new policy role. To me, these are clear signs that we are breaking new ground, but we have much more to do and to learn before we become really effective. It is my belief that the Board's appetite has been whetted for this new role and that there is now no turning back.

Reflections and Comments:

Let me add a more personal note on what being Chair of the Board has meant to me. These past years have been my most rewarding experience of public service of any type. The more I gave, the more I received from others. During this period I authored seven editorials (two in Chemical and Engineering News, two in the Journal of Chemical Education, one in Science, one in The Scientist, and one in the New York Times Op Ed page). I appeared five times at Congressional hearings and I twice had the misfortune of traveling across the country to attend hearings that were cancelled at the last moment -- something I call painful loss of hearing! I also made official visits to New Zealand (where I had the pleasure of dedicating a C-130 transport), to Antarctica, to Mexico, and to China.

This "burst of activity" by the Board would not have occurred without strong support from others, especially the NSF Director, Neal Lane, who let it happen, and Dr. Marta Cehelsky, NSB Executive Officer, who provided the Board and me with huge assistance in spite of being quite understaffed to handle an activist Board trying to blaze new trails.

What advice might I offer future members of the National Science Board? When I reflect on what needs to be done to sustain our progress, I recall a powerful statement whose source is unknown to me: "To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles." When I first heard these words, I thought them strange. They are quite different from what Groucho Marx said: “Those are my principles, and if you do not like them, ... ... well, I have others.” The statement about the need to rise above principles, I have come to realize, contains special wisdom. I suggest that future Board members must be guided by their principles in carrying out all the tasks of the National Science Board, but once the Board has decided on a course of action, its members must learn to pull together in support of one another provided that our decision is not offensive to our most deeply held principles. Too often consensus is equated with near unanimity. We must learn how to reach consensus and then move on to do other business. The National Science Board is not a faculty senate meeting in which those who do not get their way remain free to object indefinitely, a behavior pattern not limited to those in universities.

It has been a true pleasure and a high privilege for me to have had this opportunity to serve on the National Science Board for six years and as your Chair for the past two years. I will miss the good companionship it has provided me, and the opportunity for my own personal growth. In following along these new paths, the National Science Board can make an even more positive contribution to the nation.

Richard N. Zare

Chairman, 1996-1998

ADDENDUM, May 8, 1998

To complete the record for this term, after this report was written, during its May 6-8 meeting, the Board:

  • Approved a logo for the NSB; and
  • Met with Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Appendix to NSB-98-83



MAY 1996 - MAY 1998

Arthur I. Bienenstock, Associate Director for Science, OSTP

Erich Bloch, Distinguished Fellow, Council on Competitiveness, and former NSF Director

William F. Brinkman, Vice President for Physical Sciences, Lucent Technologies, Inc.

Lewis M. Branscomb, former Director, National Bureau of Standards, former Chairman, NSB,

and currently Aetna Professor of Public Policy and Corporate Management, JFK School

of Government, Harvard University

Robert Curl, Jr., Rice University (Chemistry Nobelist)

Edward David, Jr., President, EED Inc. and former Science Advisor to the President

James J. Duderstadt, President Emeritus, University of Michigan, and former Chairman, NSB

Vernon J. Ehlers, member of U.S. House of Representatives

Craig Fields, Chair, Defense Science Board

Jacques Gansler, Vice Chair, Defense Science Board

John H. Gibbons, Director, OSTP and Science Advisor to the President

Thomas J. Glauthier, Associate Director, Natural Resources, Energy and Science, OMB

Ralph Gomory, Executive Director, Sloan Foundation

Thomas Kalil, Senior Director, National Economic Council

Martha Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research, DOE

David Lee, Cornell University (Physics Nobelist)

Robert Lichter, Executive Director, Dreyfus Foundation

W. Carl Lineberger, Department of Chemistry and JILA, University of Colorado

Chris Llewellyn-Smith, Director General, CERN

Douglas Osheroff, Stanford University (Physics Nobelist)

Kathleen Peroff, Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, OMB

Frank Press, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Institution of Washington, President Emeritus of the

National Academy of Sciences, and former Science Advisor to the President

Ken Prewitt, Executive Director, Social Science Research Council

Frank Raines, Director, OMB

Robert Richardson, Cornell University (Physics Nobelist)

Steve Schiff, members of U.S. House of Representatives

James Sensenbrenner, member of U.S. House of Representatives

George Singley, Acting Director, DDR&E, DOD

Richard Smalley, Rice University (Chemistry Nobelist)

Harold Varmus, Director, NIH

In addition, we had as our guests at our off-site meeting in Houston, Texas, the following individuals:

John Alderete, University of Texas Health Science Center

Thomas Applequist, Dean, Graduate School, Yale University

Marvin Cassman, Director, Institute of General Medicine, NIH

Paul Cuneo, Director of Technology, Shell Oil Products Co., Houston, Texas

James Decker, Deputy Director, Office of Energy Research, DOE

Marye Anne Fox, Vice President for Research, University of Texas at Austin

Malcolm Gillis, President, Rice University

Stuart Rice, Department of Chemistry, University of Chicago

David Sanchez, Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M

Brian Schwartz, Senior Assistant to the Executive Director, American Physical Society

Roy Schwitters, Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin

Michael Smailey, Texas Instruments, Inc. and adjunct professor, Rice University

Arthur Smith, Chancellor/President, University of Houston

Robert Trew, Director of Research, DDR&E, DOD

Karan Watson, Associate Dean, College of Engineering, Texas A&M University

Henry Yang, Chancellor, University of California at Santa Barbara

Back to NSB Meetings