APPROVED MINUTES 1
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
National Science Foundation
August 3, 2000
|Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman
|Anita K. Jones, Vice Chair
|John A. Armstrong
|Pamela A. Ferguson
|Mary K. Gaillard
|Stanley V. Jaskolski
|George M. Langford
|Joseph A. Miller, Jr.
|Robert C. Richardson
|Michael G. Rossmann
|Bob H. Suzuki
|Rita R. Colwell, NSF Director
||Consultants Absent: |
|Nina V. Fedoroff
|Diana S. Natalicio
||John A. White, Jr.|
|Warren M. Washington
||Mark S. Wrighton|
1 The minutes of the 359th meeting were approved by the Board at the October 19, 2000 meeting.
The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 12:55 p.m. on Thursday, August
3, 2000, with Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chairman of the Board, presiding (Agenda
NSB-00-134). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act,
this portion of the meeting was open to the public.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Swearing in, NSB Nominees
Dr. Kelly welcomed
two new Board members: Dr. Michael Rossmann, Hanley Professor of Biological
Sciences at Purdue University, and Dr. Daniel Simberloff, Nancy Gore
Hunger Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University
of Tennessee at Knoxville. He also welcomed Board consultant Dr. Nina
Fedoroff, Willaman Professor of Life Sciences and Director, Life Sciences
Consortium and Biotechnology Institute of the Pennsylvania State University.
Dr. Kelly noted that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee has reported out five of the remaining nominees (Drs. Fedoroff,
Jane Lubchenco, Diana Natalicio, Warren Washington, and John White)
to the full Senate and that Dr. Mark Wrighton also awaits Senate confirmation.
He then welcomed
Dr. Neal Lane, Director of the White House office of Science and Technology
Policy, who administered the oath of office to Drs. Rossmann and Simberloff.
AGENDA ITEM 6: Open Session Minutes, May 2000
The Board APPROVED
the Open Session minutes of the May 2000 meeting (NSB-00-123, Board
Book Tab E).
AGENDA ITEM 7: Closed Session Items for October 2000
The Board APPROVED
the Closed Session items for the October 2000 Board Meeting (NSB-00-132,
Board Book Tab F).
AGENDA ITEM 8: Chairman's Report
a. Committee membership
Dr. Kelly reported
the revised membership of the standing committees (see attachment #1,
b. Discharge of the CPP Task Force on the Environment
Dr. Kelly thanked
task force chair, Dr. Lubchenco; committee members, Drs. John Armstrong,
Mary K. Gaillard, and Washington; National Science Foundation (NSF)
staff member, Dr. Mary Clutter, and executive secretary, Dr. Penelope
Firth, for their important work. He then discharged the task force.
c. Report on Executive Committee Elections
Dr. Kelly reported
that the Board had elected Drs. M.R.C. Greenwood and Robert Richardson
to fill unexpired positions on the Executive Committee through May 2001.
d. Inspector General's Semiannual Report to the Congress
Dr. Kelly reminded
the Board that the Audit and Oversight Committee had reviewed the Inspector
General's Semiannual Report to the Congress at the May meeting and that
management's response had been sent to the Board after the meeting.
Because of the Congressional deadline for receiving the report, Dr.
Kelly reported that he had transmitted the report and management's response
for the Board.
The Board RATIFIED
transmission of the NSB management's response to the Inspector General's
Semiannual Report to the Congress.
e. NSB Meeting and Retreat in February 2001
Dr. Kelly reminded
the Board that at the May meeting there appeared to be consensus that
Head Start through grade 12 education would be the topic for the NSB
policy meeting in February 2001, and that the meeting and NSB retreat
would be held in the Washington, DC, area.
AGENDA ITEM 9: Director's Report
a. Staff Introductions
Dr. Rita Colwell
introduced several recently appointed NSF staff members: Dr. Terry Yates,
Director of the Division of Environmental Biology, Directorate for Biological
Sciences; Dr. Louis Martin-Vega, Acting Assistant Director for Engineering;
and Mr. John Wilkinson, Jr., Senior Staff Associate for Workforce Development,
Office of the Director.
b. Congressional Update
Dr. Colwell noted
that the House and Senate recessed on July 27 and will return after
Labor Day to complete the current legislative session, scheduled for
adjournment on October 6.
Dr. Colwell reported that support for NSF appropriations is strong in
both the House and Senate, especially for the President's recommended
budget number. Also, Senators Mikulski and Bond are circulating a "Dear
Colleague" letter requesting support for doubling the NSF budget over
the next five years. On June 22 the House passed H.R. 4635, the Veterans
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations
bill, and the bill is now awaiting Senate consideration. A markup in
the Senate Subcommittee has not been rescheduled since the cancellation
of all committee meetings on July 18th. An amendment to the House bill
to transfer $18 million from NSF polar research to a Housing and Urban
Development program for housing opportunities for people living with
AIDS will likely be restored in conference.
Four bills to reauthorize NSF have been introduced in the House. H.R.
4901, which provides for a three-year authorization, is the focus of
the committee's attention. No draft legislation is available from the
other actions: On July 13 the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions Committee held a hearing, and NSF's testimony was well received.
On July 19 Dr. Judith Sunley, Interim Assistant Director of the Education
and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate, testified before the House Science
Committee on Representative Ehlers' National Science Education Act (H.R.
4271). The Science Committee marked up and passed the bill on July 26;
it is now before the House Education and Workforce Committee. Dr. Colwell
also noted that Congress had passed the Oceans Act of 2000, Senate bill
2327, establishing a Commission on Ocean Policy, to review Federal activities
relating to the ocean, including science activities.
AGENDA ITEM 10: NSF Planning Issues
Dr. Colwell described
the ongoing challenge of attracting and retaining students in science
and engineering to yield future scientists and engineers drawn from
all segments of the Nation's population. NSF's strategic plan provides
that NSF will use its activities to enhance diversity in the science
and engineering workforce. Key in this effort is the participation of
women, underrepresented minority group members, and persons with disabilities
at all education levels, with special attention to the development of
an interest in science and engineering careers. Dr. Colwell mentioned
examples of programs through which NSF reaches a diverse student population
through focused program goals, management, and oversight, such as the
Urban Systemic Initiatives, Research Planning Grants for Minority Scientists
and Engineers, Program for Persons with Disabilities, the Louis Stokes
Alliances for Minority Participation, and Graduate Fellowships for Women
in Engineering and Computer Science.
Dr. Colwell presented
data on science and engineering degrees, showing that at all degree
levels minority students are represented significantly below their representation
in the U.S. population, but particularly at the graduate level. For
women, attrition at the graduate level is a serious concern. Dr. Colwell
suggested several implications of these data: (1)
The most effective investments may be at the associate and bachelor's
The transition points are critical between academic levels, from high
school to two- and four-year colleges, and from two-year to four-year
colleges and to graduate school; and (3)
Mentoring and career counseling are important, especially for minority
Dr. Colwell noted
that most NSF programs focus on the graduate level and suggested that
the Board think about stipends for NSF programs to assist students at
two-year colleges and for summer support for students pursuing a bachelor's
degree. She stated that on the graduate level NSF supports only a small
fraction of students, but it can leverage that support through partnerships
with other Federal agencies, colleges and universities, professional
societies, and the private sector. She also presented data on disparities
between women and minorities and other groups in advancement in careers
in academe and industry after age 35, and noted that persons with disabilities
were only five percent of the science and engineering workforce in 1995.
She asked the Board to guide NSF strategies to increase workforce diversity
with regard to how to invest, where to invest, and how best to influence
institutional change and embed diversity within all NSF activities.
Drs. Richard Tapia and Bob Suzuki cautioned that data on diversity tend
to be presented at a high level of aggregation that belies significant
differences among the constituent groups of the larger categories, for
example, Hispanics and Asian Americans. They also both commented on
insufficient attention given to NSF's second review criterion, which,
in its focus on broad social benefits, is important for promoting diversity.
Dr. Joseph Bordogna, NSF Deputy Director, stated that more than a year
ago the NSF Director notified the community leadership that NSF decisions
would increasingly focus on the second criterion. NSF's Director's Review
Board requires that large awards adequately address the criterion. When
new division directors are appointed, approximately a third of the interview
time spent with them deals with the second criterion and diversity issues.
noted that programs that effectively support the transition between
receipt of a bachelor's degree and graduate education tend to have focused
traineeship summer programs structured around disciplinary cores. He
further observed that NSF might want to seek ways to expose African-American
students oriented toward medical degree programs to other opportunities
in science and engineering.
Dr. Stanley Jaskolski
remarked that strategies are needed to target students in grade school,
high school, and college. He also suggested that industry be enlisted
as an ally for diversity in the workforce, particularly in programs
that would motivate people by exposing them to the value of science,
engineering, mathematics, and information technology. Dr. Colwell responded
that a matching program to provide scholarships for students interested
in science, engineering, and mathematics at the community college level
could make a significant difference because a large proportion of minority
and women students are enrolled in community colleges.
Dr. Joseph Miller
strongly supported Dr. Jaskolski's comments and, noting Dr. Colwell's
remark, suggested that NSF and industry consider work-study programs
or cooperative programs at community colleges. He further inquired about
NSF's Centers for Learning and Teaching with regard to their involvement
with tribal schools and historically black colleges and universities.
Dr. Natalicio cautioned that the target group for work-study or other
assistance needs to be carefully defined, and that the disaggregation
of data is also important for students enrolled in community colleges.
She observed that community college students have widely divergent goals
and many would not be appropriate for participation in programs to encourage
pursuit of advanced science and engineering degrees.
responded that engaging industry and community colleges would be a natural
sequel to activities already occurring in the Engineering Research Centers
and the Science and Technology Centers. Dr. Sunley, responding to Dr.
Jaskolski, explained that Centers for Learning and Teaching programs
focus on minority-serving institutions and on building diversity in
the instructional workforce.
Responding to a
question on NSF's Advance program targeted to assist women, Dr. Bordogna
reported that a solicitation is being prepared that will integrate all
NSF investments to advance women scientists and engineers. Strategies
will include individual grants to women, components for handling issues
such as re-entry, and grants to institutions that have a record of success
in advancing women.
on the need to focus on strategies for retention, such as insuring that
women and minorities get a strong math background early in their educational
careers, that maternity leave is incorporated into graduate and postdoctoral
programs, and that students from underrepresented populations become
involved in research. Dr. George Langford suggested that NSF could greatly
increase the number of minority graduate students by assuring diversity
among its research assistantships.
Dr. Colwell described
the process that NSF uses to establish budget priorities. The input
to the budget planning comes from three general sources: (1) needs and
opportunities, which is the scientific input, (2) strategic direction
and policy, from the Board, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for the Administration's
research and development priorities (through the annual memorandum from
the heads of OMB and OSTP), and the Congress, and (3) performance evaluation.
NSF management then develops budget options and scenarios, looks at
major drivers and, with Board oversight, establishes priorities. Criteria
or guideposts used in establishing priorities include opportunity, impact,
readiness, timeliness, consensus, integration with NSF mission, and
balance. Once the major budget decisions are made, the task becomes
one of communicating information and building consensus and support.
Dr. Colwell noted that the Board plays two major roles: (1) providing
advice, input regarding needs and opportunities, strategic decisions,
and performance assessment; and (2) reviewing and approving the budget
request for submission to OMB.
Dr. Colwell stated
that two integrative strategies define the NSF budget process: strengthening
the core activities from which capabilities arise, and supporting major
initiatives based on national and global priorities. Two other crosscutting
strategies feed into the process: identifying unmet opportunities in
the disciplines and diversifying the portfolio. Dr. Colwell noted that
although core activities and initiatives are distinguished in budget
presentations, in fact they are synergistic and their boundaries are
not well defined.
Dr. Colwell remarked
that budgeting is continuous: one budget is being closed out, another
is being implemented, a third is being prepared for submission, and
a fourth is being planned. With regard to Board participation, in March,
opportunities and issues are discussed. In May, priorities emerge. In
June, the Executive Committee focuses on the principles and the constructs
for preparing the budget. The May and June discussions are incorporated
into the Budget Call to the Assistant Directors for detailed information.
In early July, the Executive Committee discusses the preliminary budget
estimates. Discussions in August and September are the basis of more
detailed estimates. The budget is presented to the Executive Committee
for approval in September and to the full Board at the October meeting.
Dr. Colwell described
the process by which new initiatives are developed within NSF. Each
new initiative is assigned to an Assistant Director as coordinator,
who works with the Senior Management Integration Group (SMIG) to appoint
an agency-wide initiative working group. This group develops scientific
and education direction for the initiative and works closely with directorates
and the budget office to develop integrated plans that are broadly understood
and accepted throughout NSF. Dr. Colwell agreed to provide information
to the Board on unmet opportunities considered but not included in the
2001 budget as context for the four initiatives that were included:
biocomplexity in the environment, nanoscale science and engineering,
information technology research, and the 21st century workforce.
AGENDA ITEM 11: National S&E Infrastructure
Dr. Bordogna reminded
the Board that they had requested a presentation on the Nation's science
and engineering (S&E) infrastructure to assist them in deciding whether
to undertake a study of the subject. He noted that the presentation
would focus on the changing nature of infrastructure. The definition
of infrastructure is evolving, as computer and communications technologies-cyber
infrastructure and other developments change the nature of infrastructure.
To make informed decisions about infrastructure, decision-makers need
better measures to assess the current state and plan for future investment
and stewardship. Disciplines have their own assessments and NSF collects
data on research facilities, largely focused on buildings and equipment.
There is a strong need to reexamine the criteria used to set priorities
for infrastructure support and an opportunity to define infrastructure.
It is more than buildings and tools; it also includes research space,
protocols and standards, computation and networking capacity, and other
things that enable future education and research capacity.
Dr. Bordogna noted
issues involved include: What are the size and quality of national physical
infrastructure for S&E? What new infrastructure is needed to ensure
U.S. leadership in S&E? What portion of this infrastructure should be
provided by the public and private sectors? How do Federal indirect
costs and cost-sharing policies affect this dynamic? What proportion
produces knowledge that can be broadly used? To answer these questions
requires national and international perspectives. A 1995 report of the
National Science and Technology Council on infrastructure, facilities,
and instrumentation made recommendations in three areas. (1) It recommended
a major interagency effort to improve that infrastructure¾that infrastructure
be well used by sharing and by employing remote access, and that support
of infrastructure be balanced with research support and training; (2)
It suggested that seven percent of all Federal research and development
be for infrastructure; and (3) It recommended that institutions should
cost-share acquisitions and should support operations and maintenance.
Dr. Bordogna noted
in conclusion that a significant decrease in the quality of S&E infrastructure
would retard scientific and engineering progress and erode U.S. ability
to attract and retain first-rate researchers and educators. Priorities
must be set, but the changing nature of infrastructure requires reexamination
of criteria used to set priorities.
as chairman of the Committee on Programs and Plans, led the Board's
discussion, which focused on issues the Board might consider if a task
force is formed. The Board discussion included questions of scope and
definition, and availability of data for the proposed study. Currently
available data on infrastructure focus on "bricks and mortar," availability
of space, and counts of equipment, and do not address changing infrastructure
needs, including the emergence of cyber infrastructure. Members generally
agreed that general purpose bricks and mortar in the form of buildings
should be excluded from such a study. However, unique specialized facilities
required to house very large research instrumentation should be considered.
Other needs noted included the people to operate and maintain major
instruments, attention to animal facilities and specialized facilities
for plants, and consideration of the trade-off between funding infrastructure
and funding research.
Responding to a
question from Dr. Pamela Ferguson as to how the findings of such a study
would be used and who would be the audience, Dr. Colwell noted that
the study findings would help demonstrate that investment in science
and engineering is unacceptably low and that the Federal budget for
NSF is severely below what it should be, given the size of the U.S.
economy. Dr. Greenwood added that the study could also help direct well-targeted
private sector investments for maximum impact.
Dr. Kelly stated
that an NSB task force would make an important contribution by defining
terms, which will take considerable thought and effort. The Board's
study could educate the public on the nature of the gap between the
accelerating rate of change in scientific knowledge and the lagging
rate of change in infrastructure, and the consequences of that difference.
Members agreed that the first step is to set up an internal group to
focus on definitions and develop a workplan.
AGENDA ITEM 12: EHR Program Approvals
Dr. Suzuki reported
that the EHR Committee had approved two programs to recommend to the
Board. The first is the Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service
program, an interagency program to build capacity for developing specialists
in computer security systems (Board Book Tab G, NSB-00-143; see attachment
The Board APPROVED the Federal Cyber Service program.
The second is the
Centers for Learning and Teaching program, addressing the need for adequately
prepared math and science teachers through collaborations involving
a Ph.D.-granting institution and a school system, among others (Board
Book Tab H, NSB-00-142; see attachment #3). A pilot program was conducted
last year; the new program will be scaled up to 7-9 projects.
The Board APPROVED the Centers for Learning and Teaching program.
AGENDA ITEM 13:
NSB Report Communicating Science and Technology in the Public Interest
chair of the Committee on Communication and Outreach, thanked committee
members and the Executive Secretary Ms. Mary Lou Higgs for their hard
and efficient work on the document (Board Book Tab I, NSB-00-99). She
summarized the committee's three recommendations and reported that during
the public comment period all comments received were positive and none
required changes to the document. During discussion, Dr. Marta Cehelsky,
Board Executive Officer, clarified plans for distribution: the document
will be posted on the website, announced by postcards sent to interested
communities, and released as a printed report.
The Board ACCEPTED
Communicating Science and Technology in the Public Interest as
Dr. Greenwood noted
that NSF has been asked to help the Board play a more active role in
communication and outreach by providing materials on key issues in science
and engineering research and education. In response, the Director's
proposal indicated that a collaborative effort among Budget and Finance
Administration, the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, and the
Board Office will produce PowerPoint slides and related briefing materials
conveying coordinated messages. The materials will be placed on the
secure NSB website no later than Labor Day and will be updated quarterly.
Board members will receive passwords to access the site. Dr. Bordogna
stressed the importance of receiving feedback from Board members on
what they really need and find useful. Adjustments will be made as needed.
Dr. Kelly thanked
Dr. Greenwood, chair; committee members, Drs. Langford, Maxine Savitz,
Suzuki, and Chang-Lin Tien; and Ms. Higgs, executive secretary, for
their excellent work. He then discharged the committee.
ADENDA ITEM 14: Committee Reports
a. Audit and
Oversight Committee (A&O)
committee chair, reported that the committee welcomed three new members,
Drs. Fedoroff, Simberloff, and Rossmann. Dr. Lorretta Hopkins, Staff
Associate in the Office of Integrative Activities, provided information
on the Government Performance and Results Act process at NSF and the
challenges faced. NSF received comments from the General Accounting
Office (GAO) on its 1999 performance report and needs to supply more
background information to support its conclusions. The interaction with
GAO in this first year of the formal process was constructive. Ms. Deborah
Cureton from the Office of the Inspector General and Mr. Donald McCrory,
Acting Chief Financial Officer, briefed the committee on the NSF audit
process, underlying legislation, and preparation of the fiscal year
2001 statement. Mr. Wilkinson reported on the demographics of NSF's
current workforce, including trends for the past 10 years. NSF's budget
and workload have grown considerably during that time, but the workforce
level has remained basically flat. The skill mix needed to support NSF
functions requires more complex business and technology skills than
were needed just five years ago.
b. Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP)
committee chair, reported that the committee dealt with three action
items: an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement for the Gemini 8-Meter
International Telescope, an extension of the Cooperative Agreement for
National Optical Astronomy Observatories, and the Terascale Computing
System award. All three were recommended to the Board for approval.
Dr. Bordogna and NSF staff led discussions on five high-priority items
in the Major Research Equipment budget: (1) Ice Cube, a detector array
at the South Pole for cosmic neutrinos, (2) Earth Scope, a U.S. plate
boundary observatory of unprecedented scope and resolution, (3) a new
network of high- technology ocean observatories, (4) Atacama Large Millimeter
Array, now in its first prototype phase, and (5) Rare Symmetry Violation
Processes, a set of experiments designed to answer fundamental questions
about symmetry-breaking events. The committee received information on
the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and discussed it
in the context of new ground rules for Major Research Equipment. Dr.
Margaret Leinen, Assistant Director of the Geosciences Directorate,
updated the committee on NSF's progress in implementing the Board's
report on the environment. The committee also discussed the need to
take a fresh look at NSF's long-term strategy for very high performance
computing. In a continuation of this discussion, NSF management will
make a presentation to the committee on this issue in October.
Polar Issues Task Force
chair of the Polar Issues Task Force, reported the finalization of the
Cooperative Agreement between the University of Alaska and the International
Arctic Research Consortium. The task force heard presentations on AMANDA,
the Ice Cube, and new findings on the early history of the glaciation
of the Earth and received an update on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
The task force will provide oversight and advice for the Assessment.
A representative of the new contractor for logistics at the South Pole,
Raytheon, described procedures that are being put in place to improve
safety and lower the accident rate.
c. Committee on Education and Human Resources (EHR)
Dr. Suzuki, committee
chair, reported that Dr. Sunley and the committee continued discussing
priority setting in the EHR Directorate and education programming across
NSF. Among the issues raised were NSF's niche nationally in science
and math education, the need for an annual presentation to set the context
for current portfolio programs and planned initiatives, and a request
for information on how other directorates support EHR priorities. Dr.
Sunley also continued her presentation on diversity, emphasizing K-12
education. The committee discussed assembling a group of experts on
NSF's niche in K-16 education. Participants will include five to seven
specialists, such as a former school superintendent, a classroom teacher,
a researcher in learning and cognition, and a bench scientist. The committee
expects to present a proposed agenda and list of speakers for the Board's
February policy meeting. The committee discussed and endorsed a proposal
from Dr. Kelly for a task force on the future science and engineering
workforce in the context of national workforce and global issues.
Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators (S&EI)
Dr. Tapia, chair
of the subcommittee, reported that Science and Engineering Indicators
2000, released in June, has been well received and there has been
strong press interest. Planning for Indicators 2002 has begun,
based on the recommendations provided in Dr. Claudia Mitchell-Kernan's
End of Cycle Report. The subcommittee decided that the K-12 chapter
was most in need of major revision and agreed to topics for the initial
outline. It was decided to involve K-12 experts in the review process.
Dr. Lynda Carlson, Director, Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS),
proposed that the 2002 planning focus on improved accessibility and
relevance, thematic organization of each chapter, effective integration
of themes across chapters, early review and input from the Board, and
delivery to the President on January 15, 2002. The subcommittee approved
the proposed eight chapter topics, incorporation of environmental issues
into the various chapters of the 2002 report, development of an outline
for an environmental chapter in 2004, and the process and schedule to
be followed. Dr. Tapia noted that the subcommittee will be involved
with SRS staff from the initial outline through the final writing and
that Board involvement in reviewing outlines and chapters will be essential
throughout the process, not just in reading the final product.
d. Task Force on the NSF's 50th Anniversary
Dr. Vera Rubin,
chair of the task force, reported on the external review of the 50th
anniversary commemorative brochure and indicated that most comments
suggested the need for more detail, especially for the 1980s and 1990s.
Task force members will review the document again, then submit it to
the Board by mail in September and ask for Board approval at the October
meeting. Dr. Kelly emphasized the need for quick review by the Board
because of the tight timeline.
Dr. Rubin reminded
the Board that the JumpStart 2000 competition ended in May. The six
winning entries (two from grades K-4, two from grades 5-8, and two from
grades 9-12) were published in Parade magazine on May 14, and the winners
were brought to Washington, DC, May 16-18. Events included an awards
banquet, a meeting on Capitol Hill, and a special tour of the White
House. Dr. Rubin thanked Ms. Susan Mason and Ms. Janell Richardson from
the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs for coordinating the activities
of the contests and the awards events in Washington.
In planning for
the Board's December 12 celebration, the task force concluded that the
Carnegie Institution of Washington was too small for the invitation
list the Board is proposing. Alternatives identified include the Willard
Hotel and Loew's L'Enfant Plaza Hotel. Dr. Rubin reported that the task
force has selected Burt and Jean Westwood for the evening entertainment.
Their specialty is scientific sonnets, fitting lyrics to well-known
popular songs. Dr. Rubin called the Board's attention to the proposed
budget for the December 12 event, to be covered by the NSB subaccount
of the NSF Trust Fund.
The Board APPROVED
the budget for the December 12 event and the task force's selection
of entertainment, Burt and Jean Westwood. The Board also ACCEPTED the
task force's recommendation to change the location of the December 12
e. Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering
Dr. Ferguson reported
on behalf of the task force. The group is preparing a report and recommendations
for the next Administration's transition team and expects to submit
the report to the Board for approval at the October meeting. At the
request of the NSF Director, the task force is also preparing guidance
for NSF management to incorporate into discussions on the fiscal year
2002 budget. This document is in the early stages of development, but
there is agreement that NSF needs to raise the profile of its international
f. Committee on Science and Engineering Policy Issues
Dr. Kelly, committee
chair, stated that the committee discussed draft recommendations based
on its study of priority-setting methodologies to date. Issues raised
included data sources used to monitor and track Federal funding for
research, the complexity of allocation decisions in mission agencies,
a centralized system for research and development budget allocations,
the value of diversity in the U.S. system, the desirability of focusing
on priority-setting methodologies, and the low level of support for
investments in science and technology and their effect on the economy.
The committee discussed plans for the August 4 meeting with agencies
and agreed to hold a Stakeholders' Symposium on October 20-21. The intent
is to bring a report to the Board at the December meeting and to issue
a draft interim report following Board approval.
The committee met
with the Chief of the OMB Science and Space Branch and three other staff
members, summarized the rationale behind possible recommendations, and
outlined a schedule for remaining activities. The OMB staff expressed
great interest in the committee's effort and drew special attention
to major cross-agency initiatives. While OMB wants to maintain the strength
of core disciplines and balance in the Federal portfolio, it also sees
exciting opportunities in multidisciplinary research. OMB shares the
committee's concern over databases and tools available to support allocation
decisions, especially in emerging areas of science and engineering.
Dr. Kelly reminded
the Board of the meeting on August 4 with Federal agencies that support
research, and of the reception for guests from Federal agencies immediately
following this meeting.
g. Executive Committee
Dr. Colwell, committee
chair, reported that the committee focused on budget matters related
to fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In September, the committee will approve
the NSF fiscal year 2002 budget and the Office of the Inspector General's
fiscal year 2002 budget, consistent with the Board's delegation of authority
to the committee.
AGENDA ITEM 15: Presentation: NSF Office of the Inspector General
Dr. Kelly introduced
Dr. Tina Boesz, NSF Inspector General. He noted that the act establishing
the office vested responsibility for supervision of the Inspector General
in the Board.
In an abbreviated
presentation, Dr. Boesz stated that NSF established its Inspector General
(IG) in 1989, pursuant to Congressional statute. IGs are cabinet-level,
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and charged
with promoting economy, effectiveness, and efficiency. The Board has
the responsibility to select, remove, and oversee the work of the NSF
IG, and the IG works closely with NSF management. By statute, the office
has an Associate IG for Audit and an Associate IG for Investigations.
The IG prepares an annual audit plan for NSF, presented to the Board's
Audit and Oversight Committee, covering financial and performance audits
that focus on high-risk programs and projects (large dollar amounts
or small institutions receiving NSF grants for the first time). Dr.
Boesz stated that a Board member may request an audit of a program simply
to learn more about how it operates. The IG performs civil and criminal
investigations, which for NSF include misconduct in science (plagiarism,
falsification of data)¾the only time the Office of the IG intersects
with the actual conduct of science. In misconduct cases, the Office
of the IG monitors an institution's investigation or does the investigation
itself, and the NSF Deputy Director adjudicates. Appeals go to the NSF
Director. By law, the IG reports semiannually to Congress. The IG's
mission is to support the NSF in its mission by promoting economy and
safeguarding integrity. Other points in the IG's current strategic plan
are to prevent problems, take appropriate actions, and focus on education
AGENDA ITEM 16: Other Business
Kelly expressed appreciation to the many NSF staff members who provided
support and helped with preparations for the meeting. He adjourned the
Open Session at 4:47 p.m.
1 to NSB-00-156
July 11, 2000
COMMITTEES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
|Dr. Colwell, Director, Chair
|Dr. Jones, NSB Vice Chair
|Dr. Kelly, NSB Chair
AUDIT AND OVERSIGHT
|Dr. Jaskolski, Chair
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
|Dr. Suzuki, Chair
EHR Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators
|Dr. Tapia, Chair
PROGRAMS AND PLANS
|Dr. Armstrong, Chair
||Dr. Tien |
CPP Task Force on the Environment
Note: NSB Chairman
and NSF Director are members ex officio of all committees
** Nominee pending U.S. Senate confirmation
# NSF Staff
Subcommittee on Polar Issues
TASK FORCE ON NSB 50TH ANNIVERSARY
|Dr. Rubin, Chair
TASK FORCE ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES IN S&E
||Dr. Erb# |
COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC S&E POLICY ISSUES
|Dr. Kelly, Chair
COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH
|Dr. Greenwood, Chair
||Dr. Tien |
HOC COMMITTEE ON NSB NOMINATIONS FOR CLASS OF 2008
|Dr. Jones, Chair
** Nominee pending U.S. Senate confirmation
# NSF Staff
2 to NSB-00-156
MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
SUBJECT: New Program - Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS)
The Federal Cyber
Service: Scholarship for Service (SFS) program is an outgrowth of the
Federal Cyber Services Training and Education Initiative. The Initiative
and its SFS component were formulated in part as a response to the report
"Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructures"
prepared by the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
in October 1997.
in the Federal Cyber Services Training and Education Initiative will
include the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Critical Information
Assurance Office (CIAO), the National Security Agency (NSA), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Security Council (NSC).
In both the private
and public sectors, the need for computer security and information assurance
specialists is acute. The SFS program will address this need by increasing
the number of qualified students entering the fields of information
assurance and computer security, and by increasing the capacity of the
United States higher education enterprise to produce professionals in
The SFS program
will provide funding to colleges and universities for scholarships to
individuals in information assurance who will commit to federal service
on completion of their degree. Capacity building through faculty development
and capacity building through institutional development in information
assurance and computer security fields are also elements of the program.
The National Science
Foundation anticipates the following outcomes:
- New entrants to the federal workforce with the education and
training that will enhance the security of critical federal information
- An increased national capability for the education of information
technology professionals in critical information infrastructure
- Identification, development, recognition, and maintenance of
leading edge programs at universities and colleges with information
- Increased national research and development capabilities in
critical information infrastructure protection, and
- Strengthened partnerships between institutions of higher education
and relevant employment sectors.
The program will
consist of two elements-a scholarship track and a capacity building
- In the scholarship track, an award will provide four
years of funding to enable institutions to cover as many as three
cohorts of up to 10 two-year full scholarships (30 two-year scholarships
total during the grant period) for study leading to baccalaureate
and masters degrees providing technical competence in the area
of information assurance and security. Upon graduation, the scholarship
recipients will be required to work for a federal agency for two
years as their Federal Cyber Service commitment.
- The capacity building track includes a faculty development
component and an institutional development component to assist
those higher education institutions that are not currently certified
in information assurance education. The faculty development component
would provide funding for institutions with the CAE/IAE certification
or equivalent programs to conduct regional faculty development
activities for teams from other institutions to develop faculty
capacity in information assurance and computer security. The institutional
development component for capacity building in information assurance
and computer security will include outreach to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and
Tribal Colleges. There will be strong encouragement for the participation
of underrepresented groups, including women.
For the Scholarship
track, support will be provided to students who compete successfully
in a selection process developed by the grantee, who meet the SFS eligibility
criteria, and who are selected as qualified for employment in the Federal
Cyber Service by the OPM. It will be expected that scholarship participants
will receive their degrees (undergraduate or masters) within two years
of the beginning of their scholarships. Each proposing institution will
provide a description of their selection criteria and process, and will
explain and justify the proposed distribution of scholarship recipients.
In particular, institutions must ensure that groups underrepresented
in information technology have fair access to scholarships.
For the Capacity
Building track, projects in the faculty development component will be
expected to develop and implement activities that assist faculty in
learning about recent advances in information assurance and computer
security to improve their instructional capability in these areas. Such
projects might include conferences, workshops, intensive seminars, distance
learning opportunities, or a combination of such activities to bring
about the desired professional development for faculty. Projects in
the institutional development component will be expected to have a specific
focus in one of the following areas: (1) adaptation and implementation
of exemplary education materials, courses and curricula that have been
developed at institutions currently certified in information assurance
education; (2) development of curricula and/or materials that affect
the learning environment and increase the prominence and quality of
information assurance and computer security education; (3) classroom
and/or work environment technical experiences enabling students and
faculty to interact with professionals in the field of information assurance
and computer security; and (4) laboratory and/or field experiences to
improve students' understanding of basic principles or support use by
faculty of modern instrumentation and new technologies.
Accredited U.S. institutions of higher education and consortia with
strong programs of activity in information assurance are eligible to
apply. The proposing institution (lead institution in a consortium)
must be able to demonstrate that its programs meet criteria relevant
to those necessary for certification by the National Security Agency
as a Center of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education
Track: Institutions with CAE/IAE certification or equivalent are eligible
for the Faculty Development component. Institutions that do not have
CAE/IAE certification or equivalent are eligible for the Institutional
AWARD SIZE AND
The SFS Scholarship
track will support a university or college based scholarship program
that provides two years of tuition, room and board, and stipend for
students in the general area of information assurance and security.
The program will contain an internship component intended to provide
for hands-on training in the Federal Government. A typical award might
be approximately $2.5 million for four years supporting three cohort
classes of 10 first-year students (year 1), 10 first-year and 10 second-year
students (year 2), 10 first-year and 10 second-year students (year 3),
and 10 second-year students (year 4). The total award sizes will depend
upon the tuition and room and board costs.
For the Capacity
Building: Faculty Development component, awards will be made for up
to $100,000 per year for 2 years to CAE/IAE certified or equivalent
institutions to conduct regional and national faculty development activities
for faculty teams from non-CAE/IAE institutions. For the Capacity Building:
Institutional Development component, awards will be made for up to $100,000
per year for 2 years to institutions not currently eligible for the
SFS Scholarship Track to develop institutional capacity in the information
assurance and computer security area.
Merit review of
formal proposals will be based upon standard NSF criteria interpreted
in light of SFS program objectives and review criteria specific to the
SFS program. Proposals will also be expected to include a management
plan, budget justification, and partnership details, including institutional
commitment if applicable.
Director (AD) for Education and Human Resources (EHR) will oversee the
SFS Program with regard to policy and budget matters within NSF. The
Director of OPM will oversee SFS with regard to policy and budget matters
within OPM. The management of the program will be assigned to the Division
of Undergraduate Education.
Coordinating Committee (ICC) will manage the review process and recommend
proposals for funding. Its membership will include the Assistant Director
for EHR, the NSF program officer designated as the lead officer for
the SFS program, a representative from OPM, and a representative from
NSA. Ex-officio members will include members from the National Security
Council and the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office. Additional
members may be added by the ICC. It will be chaired by the lead SFS
Each year, a single
competition will be held with proposal review by expert panels. The
panel members will be chosen by NSF with advice from the ICC, and panels
will include members from federal agencies with information assurance
needs. The review process will be consistent with merit review policies
of NSF. Site visitations by NSF or the ICC may be conducted for proposal
evaluation and assessment of progress.
For FY 2001, NSF
has requested approximately $11.2 million for this activity, supporting
5-8 institutional scholarship awards and 5-8 capacity building awards.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Each year, the
ICC will review the progress of the supported projects based on information
provided in annual reports and possibly site visits. The ICC will develop
a report for NSF, OPM, and NSA senior management that highlights accomplishments,
as well as identifies strengths and weaknesses within specific projects
and across the program as a whole.
As with all NSF
education and training activities, the SFS program will receive a third-party
evaluation after its third year of operation. Evaluation results will
be used to assess effectiveness of the program in meeting its stated
goals and objectives and to identify strengths and weaknesses that can
inform new directions in program development and management.
I recommend that
the Board approve the following resolution:
the National Science Board approves a Federal Cyber Service: Scholarship
for Service (SFS) Program subject to the availability of funds, and
authorizes the Director to take final action on grants, contracts,
and other arrangements except when such actions require Board approval
under existing policy guidelines.
3 to NSB-00-156
MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
SUBJECT: New Program - Centers for Learning and Teaching
The Centers for
Learning and Teaching (CLT) program is a comprehensive, research-based
effort that will address critical issues and national needs of the science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology (SMET) instructional workforce.
Centers will provide a rich environment that melds research, pre-service
and in-service professional development, and education practice.
may have specific academic foci (e.g., K-6 science, large-scale assessments,
curriculum development), but each will address the following two broad
1) enhancing the
content knowledge and pedagogical skills of the current and future elementary
and secondary teachers; and
2) rebuilding the
infrastructure of higher education faculty who educate those teachers.
The CLT effort
builds upon previous activities in the professional development of teachers
and provides opportunities for graduate students and post-graduate students
in the disciplines and in SMET education to acquire the knowledge and
skills needed to educate the next generation of teachers. Combined with
new approaches in assessment, curriculum and materials development,
and research-based instructional methodologies, the CLT program will
enable the Foundation to build the intellectual infrastructure needed
to ensure high-quality, standards-based learning opportunities in SMET
for all students.
was held in FY 2000 that shortly will result in awards for two pilot
Centers. Activities of the two pilot Centers, and lessons learned during
the review process will inform future program management.
The CLT program
calls for a systemic approach to the development and enhancement of
the SMET instructional workforce (kindergarten through graduate school)
where professionals are educated in an environment of research and practice.
For elementary and secondary teachers, a Center will provide opportunities
to enhance content knowledge, develop teaching strategies that lead
to improved student learning, implement high quality instructional materials,
develop skills in using various strategies for assessing student learning,
and learn ways to effectively incorporate informational technology into
instruction. For graduate students, postdoctoral students, and interns
a Center will provide research opportunities that will improve learning,
teaching, and assessment across the educational continuum.
will develop different models to achieve their objectives, all will
be expected to address the following three programmatic goals that are
based upon documented national needs.
1) Centers will
increase significantly the numbers of K-12 educators in both formal
(schools) and informal (museums, zoos, botanical gardens, etc.) settings
who have current content knowledge in their disciplinary area and who
are prepared to implement standards-based instruction (for example,
through problem-solving, small group work, and extended questioning)
and new assessment strategies (performance-based, open-ended, and embedded
in curricula). Further, these teachers will be able to use informational
technology as an aid to student learning.
2) Centers will
rebuild and diversify the human resource pool that forms the national
infrastructure for SMET education. This component will provide basic
and advanced education for graduate and post-graduate students who will
specialize in K-16 education (either in disciplinary or education departments),
provide the expertise for large-scale assessment and/or evaluation of
educational reform, conduct research on teaching and learning, develop
the next generation of curricular materials, and develop future directions
in informal science education.
3) Centers will
provide substantive opportunities for research into the nature of learning,
strategies of teaching, policies of educational reform, and outcomes
of standards-based reform.
Centers will involve
partnerships of organizations with a scientific and/or educational mission.
Among these are two- and four-year colleges and universities, state
and local education agencies, professional societies, research laboratories,
informal science centers, instructional materials development centers,
private foundations, business and industry, and other public and private
organizations whether for profit or nonprofit. Each Center must have
one or more school district partners, as well as a partner that is authorized
to award appropriate doctoral degrees. Where possible, Centers should
have collaborative relationships with NSF systemic initiatives (i.e.,
state, urban, rural, local). Cost-sharing is mandatory at a level of
10% of the total budget requested from NSF. Submitting institutions
must specify the sources and amounts of cost-sharing in support of the
Centers will address
the continuum of teacher education and will increase the capacity of
the SMET educational infrastructure by preparing professionals through
doctoral programs or by providing postdoctoral and/or internship opportunities
for individuals drawn from a discipline or from education. Each Center
will provide a learning laboratory for its participants, and all Centers
are expected to incorporate features such as:
and commitment of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians, and of
science, engineering, technology, and mathematics educators;
- research related
to the focus of the Center and related to teacher professional development
- a firm and
committed collaboration among a variety of types of institutions that
will work as equal partners;
- plans to increase
diversity in the science, mathematics, and technology K-12 instructional
workforce and in the higher education instructional workforce;
- teacher preparation
and professionalization as part of the professional development continuum;
evaluation as well as participation in relevant evaluation activities
as requested by NSF.
AWARD SIZE AND DURATION
It is anticipated
that typical awards for Centers for Learning and Teaching projects will
be $10 million over five years. Awards will be made as continuing grants.
All Centers will participate in reverse site visits during the second
year of their awards, and evaluation of performance will form the basis
for continued funding. Allowable costs will include support for teacher
participants to attend graduate courses, and support for graduate and
postdoctoral students and interns to develop specialized skills to support
and sustain K-12 education and the instructional workforce. Cost-sharing
is mandatory at a level of 10% of the total budget requested from NSF.
Merit review criteria
established by the National Science Board will be used to evaluate Center
proposals. As elaboration on the merit review criteria, the following
concerns will be addressed in the review process:
Depending on the availability of funds, competitions will be held
annually or biennially. The proposal review process will consist of
three stages: A preliminary review by program staff (this is advisory
only for proposers); a two-stage panel review for full proposals;
and a reverse site visit for the most competitive proposals identified
during the panel reviews.
- Institutional Capacity. There should be evidence of
past participation in significant, high-quality SMET educational
programs, and documentation that appropriate expertise is found
among K-16 teachers and faculty who will be significantly involved
with the Center. Further, there should be evidence of plans to
institutionalize the Center's activities at one or more of the
partnering institutions and/or agencies.
- Program Design. Project activities should reflect current
understanding of high-quality professional development and allow
for differences in background knowledge and experience that diverse
participants may bring to the Center's programs.
- Impact. There should be evidence of recruitment plans
that will strengthen the Nation's formal and informal SMET instructional
workforce (K-16) and enhance its diversity.
- Plan. Planned efforts must improve the disciplinary
content and instructional methods of potential and practicing
teachers, as well as the ability of graduate and post-graduate
students and interns to enhance the SMET educational enterprise.
- Cooperative Relationships. Existing collaborations must
be strong and continue to strengthen as the Center evolves.
- Evaluation. Project goals must be clearly stated and
measurable, and an evaluation plan that will provide data on the
impact of the Center's activities on participants and on their
students must be provided.
The Centers for
Learning and Teaching is a directorate-wide program, and the Assistant
Director for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and the Director of
the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education (ESIE)
will provide policy and budget oversight. Management and administration
of the program will be coordinated by a Centers Coordinating Committee
(CCC), chaired by ESIE's Division Director or by her/his appointee.
The CCC will consist of a member from each of EHR's divisions with representation
from other directorates that will benefit from awareness of Center activities.
An external review
committee, appointed by NSF, will oversee activities and outcomes across
Centers. This committee will conduct site visits for each Center at
the end of its initial two years of funding. Continuation of a Center
will depend on evidence that the Center is making satisfactory progress
toward its goals and those of the program.
In addition to
each Center's evaluation activities that will be reviewed by a cognizant
NSF program officer, all Centers will participate in an evaluation of
the program's goals and outcomes.
As part of EHR's
standing program evaluation activities, each Center also will be monitored
by an external evaluator. Initially, background data will be collected
in order to benchmark the current state of the instructional workforce
so that progress may be accurately charted. Evaluation of the CLT program
will be overseen by the CCC. In addition, the Center for Education of
the National Research Council will review the external evaluation process.
The FY 2001 Budget
Request for the Centers program totals $20 million. Of that amount,
$2 million will be invested in small-scale planning efforts that, in
the long run, will broaden the diversity of institutional participation
and of the geographic areas involved. In FY 2001, the budget will support
seven to nine new Centers and maintain support of the two pilot efforts
being funded in FY 2000. The program will continue as a high directorate
priority in out-years, with the level of investment and number of Centers
increasing as funds become available.
I recommend that
the Board approve the following resolution:
the National Science Board approves a Centers for Learning and Teaching
(CLT) program subject to availability of funds, and authorizes the
Director to take final action on grants, contracts, and other arrangements
except when such actions require Board approval under existing policy
Back to NSB Meetings