This document has been archived. NSB-99-45 APPROVED MINUTES OPEN SESSION 351st MEETING NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD J. Paul Getty Center Los Angeles, California February 18-19, 1999 Members Present: Members Absent: Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman Sanford D. Greenberg Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair Robert M. Solow John A. Armstrong Pamela A. Ferguson Mary K. Gaillard M.R.C. Greenwood Stanley V. Jaskolski Anita K. Jones Jane Lubchenco Eve L. Menger Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan Vera S. Rubin Bob H. Suzuki Richard Tapia Warren M. Washington John A. White, Jr. Rita R. Colwell, Director NSB Consultants Present NSB Consultants Absent George M. Langford Joseph A. Miller, Jr. Robert C. Richardson Maxine Savitz Luis Sequeira Chang-Lin Tien ____________ Note: The preliminary minutes of the 351st meeting were aprpoved by the Board at the 353rd meeting, May 6, 1999. The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 9:05 a.m. on Wednesday, February 17, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman of the NSB, presiding (Agenda NSB-99-17). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public. AGENDA ITEM 1: Chairman's Report NSB Committees The Chairman established two Committees: The 1999 Vannevar Bush Award Committee chaired by Dr. Greenwood, with Drs. Jones, Tapia and Washington as members. The International Issues in Science and Engineering Committee chaired by Dr. Natalicio, with Drs. Ferguson, Gaillard, Jaskolski and Sequeira as members. AGENDA ITEM 2: Director's Report a. Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Dr. Rita Colwell, NSF Director, announced that the President's Fiscal Year 2000 budget was delivered to Congress. A press conference to present the budget was held February 1, organized by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) and attended by Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science & Technology and other Federal agency heads. The budget includes a six percent increase for NSF. One major item in the NSF budget is $146 million for a new Information Technology initiative (IT2). Also included was a $50 million biocomplexity initiative and $7.5 million for a Graduate Teaching Fellows Programs. Also on February 1, the NSF Director held a press conference on the NSF's budget request, and met representatives of the science and engineering (S&E) research education communities, and with key congressional staff members. The Director also spoke to the Association of American Universities Council on Federal Relations, and a group of executives from S&E societies and associations. The overall reaction to the budget is good, and NSF continues to make the case for the national importance of the new IT2 initiative. b. Congressional Hearings The Director announced that hearings on the budget proposal will begin on March 4, with testimony before the House Appropriation Subcommittee, on March 16, before the House Basic Research Subcommittee, and on March 23 before the Senate VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Committee. In late February Dr. Bordogna will represent NSF at a Congressional hearing on the Interagency National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Other anticipated hearings will involve IT2, the Antarctic Program, and the Freedom of Information data release issue. AGENDA ITEM 3: Framework for Revising the NSF Strategic Plan Dr. Colwell reminded members that the original NSF Strategic Plan NSF in a Changing World (NSF-95-24) was approved in 1994, and the Foundation's strategic plan for 1997-2003 under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was approved in 1997. The GPRA strategic plan is due for revision by March 2000. The revised plan will maintain the themes of the 1994 publication, and will capture NSF's expanded roles and responsibilities over the past four years, as well as addressing future expansion. She said a senior management group at NSF has been formed to draft the revisions, and the Board will be involved from the early stages. Dr. Colwell focused on the need for an expanded budget for basic research. She noted that there would be an NSF working team with senior management, initiated at the Director's Policy Group retreat on March 1-2, to review the GPRA strategy. An external review must also be a part of the review in 2000. The Director reviewed the schedule and stated that Board members would be involved in the updating process from the beginning. Board Discussion Dr. Kelly noted the importance of using the revised strategic plan to communicate to the public and to other officials in the government about what NSF does. Dr. Colwell said that in order to think about future NSF priorities the Assistant Directors have been asked to present descriptions of initiatives that are limited by current budget constraints. These initiatives will be presented to the Board during the March discussion of long range planning. Dr. Langford agreed that there is a need to expand the NSF budget because the award size is not large enough to support the kind of research for which NSF is currently noted. Dr. Menger suggested that the human resource aspects of increased funding should be kept in mind. Dr. Tapia noted that sometimes initiatives like KDI (Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence) elicit large numbers of proposals, while funding is sufficient only for a small number of awards. When this happens, there is a negative impact on perceptions of NSF. Dr. Suzuki commented that NSF is already developing partnerships with other agencies and non-profit foundations and asked how members could provide input on the GPRA revision to staff. The Director and Chair stated that members would be notified as to the contact person and the means for communicating ideas. Dr. Colwell reiterated the importance on gathering information on what research cannot be funded by the NSF constrained budget and reminded members that it is also important to obtain the backing of the science and engineering communities to support an increased budget. Dr. Washington asked the Director to describe discussions with Congress regarding an increased budget. She answered that discussions have focused on what NSF and the nation should be doing in the 21st century. There seems to be strong support for science, math and engineering education. She also noted that there are some misconceptions that NSF cannot handle big projects. Using the South Pole Station redevelopment and Gemini telescopes as examples, she stated that this is not the case. Congress is also interested in knowing that NSF takes prioritization seriously. Several members commented that NSF may be positioned to seek other funding to leverage expansion of science and education funding. The Director noted that she and Dr. Kelly were exploring those possibilities. The Board unanimously approved the process for revising the NSF Strategic Plan described by the NSF Director Presentation: A Demographic Perspective on our Nation's Future The National Science Board heard a presentation entitled "A Demographic Perspective on our Nation's Future" by Dr. Peter A. Morrison of the RAND Corporation. Dr. Morrison discussed the global context of decreasing numbers of births per family, lower fertility rates leading to higher percentages of adults in the population, and increased numbers of women in the workforce. Dr. Morrison then provided detailed perspectives in four major areas for the U.S.: (1) the maturing age distribution; (2) impending generation gaps; (3) disparities tied to education; and (4) the complex ethnic mosaic. Dr. Morrison recommended attention to three major policy challenges: Reducing structural impediments to individual opportunities (i.e. providing computers in households and schools); nurturing human capital for the nation's science enterprise; and tempering competing interests in the context of ethnic diversity. AGENDA ITEM 4: NSB Report on Achievement in Science and Mathematics Education Dr. Mary K. Gaillard, Chairman, EHR Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement led a brief discussion of the draft report, Preparing Our Children: Math and Science Education in the National Interest Interest (NSB/TIMSS 98-21, fourth revised, Board Book Tab C), focused on the need for an executive summary that wraps some of the more powerful text around the recommendations. Several Board members urged release of the report as soon as possible, preferably with a press event followed by publication of op-ed pieces. As part of a unanimous vote of approval, the Board authorized Dr. Gaillard, the TIMSS Task Force Chair, and Dr. Suzuki, the Education & Human Resources (EHR) Committee Chair, to approve the final revisions in preparation for a release. Issuing both a paper and an electronic version available at the NSB web site was recommended. The NSB Chairman expressed the hope that the report would be issued before the end of February 1999. AGENDA ITEM 5: Other Business There was no other business and the Chairman called for the next agenda item. AGENDA ITEM 7: Symposium on Environmental Research, Education and Assessment The Symposium on Environmental Research, Education and Assessment was opened by Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chair, National Science Board. Welcoming remarks were provided by Mr. Barry Munitz, President, The Getty Center and Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NSB member and Chair of the NSB Task Force on the Environment, gave an overview of the symposium. Members of the Board moderated. The keynote address was presented by Dr. Kathryn Sullivan of the Columbus, Ohio, Center of Science and Industry. Dr. Sullivan emphasized that we need a common understanding of key issues and that assessments are required to facilitate communication among scientists, decision makers, and individuals. She exhorted NSF to look creatively at this issue. Dr. Sullivan also suggested that NSF advance fresh approaches to education, emphasizing lifelong learning via community education in addition to the traditional support for schooling. The session entitled Emerging Interdisciplinary Opportunities featured Drs. Pamela Matson (Stanford University), David Schimel (National Center for Atmospheric Research), Simon Levin (Princeton University), and Jerry Melillo (The Ecosystems Center, Woods Hole, MA) discussing agricultural landscapes, ecosystems and Earth's climate system, complexity and modeling, and global change lessons. These speakers pointed out serious unmet needs for interdisciplinary research support and discussed some of the challenges faced by academic investigators in approaching such research. One of the messages from this session was that very influential work is emerging from groups of scientists working at the borders of their disciplinary expertise. At 6:02 p.m. the Open Session was recessed. * * * * Thursday, February 18, 1999 The Open Session was reconvened at 8:57 a.m. by the Chairman of the National Science Board, Dr. Eamon M. Kelly. The Symposium on Environmental Research, Education and Assessment continued. The first panel, New Tools and Alliances, featured Drs. Christopher Somerville (The Carnegie Institute) and Catherine Gautier (University of California Santa Barbara). Dr. Somerville discussed the future as changed by biotechnology, presenting many examples where biotechnology approaches are already improving agricultural and industrial practices and enhancing environmental quality. Dr. Gautier discussed information technology, in particular as related to systems approaches, remote and in-situ sensing, and data from models. Dr. Gautier recommended that the environmental community continue to develop strong partnerships with the information technology community. The Human Dimensions and New Ways of Thinking session included talks by Drs. Carole Crumley (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill), Beverly Wright (Xavier University), and Theresa Satterfield (Decision Research, Inc.). In this session the speakers identified significant societal issues related to the environment, and the research that could be applied to improve our understanding of them. Dr. Crumley spoke on human behavior, Dr. Wright on equity and social justice, and Dr. Satterfield on public values. One of the take-home messages was that there is a "two-cultures" problem with the social vs. biophysical sciences that should be recognized and addressed early on in interdisciplinary research endeavors. The fourth session was entitled From Reaction to Proaction and featured talks by Dr. William Clark (Harvard University), Dr. Terry Yates (University of New Mexico) and Ambassador Richard Benedick (Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory). All three speakers focused on how credible scientific research can be used to improve the basis for decision making. Dr. Clark discussed assessments in general, emphasizing that they are as much process as product. He articulated several areas in which NSF could support---or continue to support--- assessment research. Dr. Yates discussed a specific example at the intersection of ecology and human disease, emphasizing the enormous importance of long-term, interdisciplinary research in developing a useful predictive understanding of the Hantavirus and related diseases. Dr. Yates also pointed out the key significance of maintenance of data sets, samples, and specimens in furthering the research. Ambassador Benedick discussed examples of assessments in his experience, and spoke about a need for new institutional structures and processes to complement existing NSF programs in the environment area. Ambassador Benedick recommended an entity that would be isolated from political pressure but informed by stakeholder concerns and support peer-reviewed environmental research. The final session, Enabling Partnerships, included talks by Drs. Berrien Moore (University of New Hampshire), Rosina Bierbaum (Office of Science and Technology Policy), and Geoff Heal (Columbia University). These speakers discussed commonalities and distinctions among international partnerships, federal partnerships, and cross-disciplinary partnerships. The issues they discussed included new approaches for international funding and funding of large-scale or long-term national efforts, new directions for the environmental research establishment, and environment viewed as infrastructure. NONAGENDA ITEM: Statement on Scientific Research Data Access The Board approved a statement on scientific research data access under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), urging repeal of recent legislation that relies on FOIA to compel premature access to research data (NSB-99-24, attached at Appendix A). There was no other business and the meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m. Susan E. Fannoney Staff Assistant Attachment: Appendix A: NSB-99-24 7 OS-2:99: