This document has been archived.
NSB 01-100
May 30, 2001
Revised
MEMORANDUM TO NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEMBERS
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of the May 23-24 2001 Meeting
The major actions of the Board at its 363rd meeting on May 23 and 24, are
summarized for the information of those members absent and as a reminder
to those present.
1. Board Elections
|
The Chairman announced that Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood
and Dr. Robert C. Richardson have been reelected to serve 2-year terms
as members of the Executive committee.
|
2. Board Actions
- The Board approved the management response to the June, 2001
Inspector General's Semi-Annual Report.
- The Board received the annual report of the Executive Committee
(NSB/EC-01-10) from the Chair, Dr. Rita Colwell.
- The Board approved a schedule of meetings for 2002, NSB-01-93
(Attachment 1).
- The Board approved the Closed and Open Session minutes of the
March 2001 meeting.
2. Awards
|
The Board approved the following award:
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Division of Astronomical Sciences
Authorization of ALMA (MMA) Year 4 Design and Development Funding
Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI)
(NSB-01-79)
|
Amount not to exceed
Amended Level
$32,000,000 through
December 31, 2001
|
Directorate for Geosciences
Division of Earth Sciences
Exploring the Earth at High Resolution: The IRIS 2005 Program Plan,
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
(NSB-01-78)
|
$88,000,000
for 60 months
|
NSB Committees
|
The Chairman discharged with thanks the Committee on the 2001 Vannevar
Bush Award, Chaired by Dr. Langford, with members Drs. Fedoroff, Washington
and Wrighton, and Executive Secretary Ms. Susan Fannoney.
The Chairman announced that Dr. Simberloff has replaced Dr. Miller on
the EHR Subcommittee on S&E Indicators.
The Chairman announced the establishment of a standing Committee on Strategy
and Budget, Chaired by Dr. Jones, with members Drs.Ferguson, Lubchenco,
Miller, Natalicio, Washington and Wrighton. A committee charge (NSB-01-104,
attachment 2) was finalized. With the establishment of this committee,
approval of the NSF budget and the OIG budget will once again be exercised
by the full Board.
|
Committee Reports
|
(Materials for committee summaries are provided by executive secretaries.)
|
a. Executive Committee
|
The Executive Committee briefly discussed the status of the budget process
and heard an update on congressional activities. It also approved the
annual report of the Executive Committee (NSB/EC-01-10), as required by
the NSF Act.
|
b. Audit & Oversight (A&O)
|
The committee heard updates on GPRA and the financial statements and
computer system audits. New computer security audit requirements under
the Government Information Security Reform Act were identified. A report
on the inaugural meeting of the Business and Operations Advisory Committee
was also given. The committee also heard a briefing on how NSB-approved
awards are tracked within NSF. The agency's response to the Gemini audit
was discussed, in terms of both responses to specific recommendations
and improvements for agency facilities management in general. It was noted
that an agency Facilities Management Plan, currently under development,
will be discussed at the August NSB. Dr. Bordogna shared copies of the
draft transmittal letter for the OIG semi-annual report, and the committee
voted to recommend that the full Board approve the letter.
|
Supervisory Session:
|
The committee discussed how the OIG would use additional FY 2002 funds
if they become available. There was a presentation of the OIG's Outreach
Plan and an update on NSF actions to address an OIG audit. The committee
considered ways to better understand and be involved in addressing management
challenges facing NSF.
|
c. Education and Human Resources (EHR)
|
Members of the EHR Committee were invited to attend a portion of the
CPP meeting where NSF's merit review Criterion 2 and its use in the review
process was discussed.
The EHR meeting heard reports from the Science and Engineering Indicators
Subcommittee and the Task Force on National Workforce Policies (NWP) for
Science and Engineering. The chair of the Indicators Subcommittee reported
that five remaining chapters will be reviewed via teleconference in the
near future. The NWP Task Force chair reported that the task force feels
it must revisit the schedule for completion of the report as November
2001 now appears very unrealistic given the amount of work involved.
The committee then discussed a draft of a report entitled "The Road
to Excellence: The National Science Foundation's Leadership in K-16 Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education." A number of
suggestions were made for reorganizing and refining the draft. The plan
is to have a new draft ready for discussion at the August meeting. The
committee reviewed the status of the draft "transition" paper
on Education and Human Resource Development and decided against further
work on this document since the content will likely be covered in the
NSF Leadership in K-12 report.
The committee next discussed a Sloan Foundation project where grants
are made to institutions to develop programs that offer a "professional
master's degree". The program aims to foster graduate training that
equips people to work outside of academia. The Sloan Foundation is interested
in the possibility of partnering with NSF on this program. The committee
asked that the EHR staff further explore the possibilities with the Sloan
Foundation and report back to the committee at the next meeting.
The committee discussed the problem of under-representation of women
at NSF-sponsored conferences and meetings - both as participants and,
in particular, as invited speakers. The committee agreed that the Board
should be asked to consider whether all directorates should have a policy
similar to the Biological Sciences Directorate, which has a policy making
awards for conference support contingent on the inclusion of women among
the invited speakers.
The committee heard presentations from Dr. Sunley regarding details of
the EHR FY02 budget, and from Dr. Hamilton on current EHR plans for better
communicating information about their programs and their research and
evaluation studies.
|
Programs and Plans (CPP)
|
The Committee on Programs and Plans, with the Education and Human Resources
Committee members invited, discussed the NSB merit review criteria two,
on broader impacts, adopted in 1998. Committee discussion covered use
of criterion two by proposers and reviewers, and considered ways to ensure
that both criteria are addressed in the proposal and review process. There
will be further discussion at the October meeting. Three action items
were identified for consideration at the October NSB meeting: (1) a draft
NSB resolution on the importance of both merit review criteria will be
prepared, (2) NSF will explore the development of generic examples for
Criterion 2 modeled after those done by the OPP Advisory Committee, and
(3) NSF will prepare a plan for better communicating the importance and
use of the merit review criteria.
CPP considered two proposed awards, and recommended award approval to
the full Board: ALMA (MMA) Year 4 Design and Development Funding (Associated
Universities, Inc.) and
Exploring the Earth at High Resolution: The IRIS 2005 Program Plan (Incorporated
Research Institutions for Seismology).
The Committee heard an update on planning for cyber infrastructure, including
information on the new Advisory Committee on Cyber Infrastructure (ACCI).
ACCI will evaluate the performance of the program for Partnerships for
Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI); recommend new areas of emphasis
for the CISE Directorate; and recommend an implementation plan in conjunction
with recommendations for new areas of emphasis. CPP was also provided
with the review schedule for the Distributed Terascale Facility.
CPP heard a brief report on the status of NSB-approved awards, including
new procedures in place for notification to the Director when discretionary
authority granted by the NSB will be used. As requested at its March 2001
meeting, CPP was provided with guidelines for the use of Gemini funds
currently held in reserve for contingencies. A baseline cash-flow analysis
for the Gemini project was outlined, including an analysis of risks.
The committee received a presentation on Major Research Equipment (MRE),
including discussion of revised guidelines for major infrastructure projects.
CPP also heard a summary of the planning process underway to consider
potential candidates for future support through the MRE budget account.
There was a presentation and discussion of the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES), an example of a distributed infrastructure
project.
The Infrastructure Task Force provided a brief report to the committee.
CPP also received two written information items from the Office of Polar
Programs; on the International Arctic Research Center (IARC), and on LC-130
aircraft upgrades currently underway.
|
a. Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI)
|
Dr. Daniel Simberloff was welcomed to the Subcommittee as its newest
member, replacing Dr. Joseph Miller.
The principal authors, lead reviewers and other subcommittee members
discussed three draft Indicators-2002 chapters, summaries of reviewers'
comments, and authors' responses.
Dr. Jean Johnson, author of the Higher Education chapter, discussed the
purpose of the chapter and summarized the reviewers' comments. Dr. Richardson,
lead Subcommittee reviewer, commented that the chapter was a very important
document containing a wealth of longitudinal data. It was suggested that
the order of the chapter be changed to first highlight the status of,
and trends in, higher education in the U.S. and then to discuss international
trends.
Dr. Thomas Smith, author of the Elementary and Secondary Education chapter,
summarized the reviewers' comments and lead reviewer Dr. Tapia stated
the chapter was very well done. He recommended clarification of the point
that improvement of achievement over time is based on the NAEP long-term
trend assessment. Also, there needs to be more information, if available,
on the impact of calculators on elementary and secondary education. It
was also recommended that achievement in inner city schools, not just
in states, be highlighted wherever possible. In comparisons across racial
and ethnic groups, Dr. Tapia noted that it is important to acknowledge
that there is wide variability within Hispanics and Asians by country
of origin, even if data are not available to distinguish them separately
in the reporting in Indicators.
Mr. Jankowski, one of the authors of the U.S. and International R&D
Funds and Alliances chapter, presented an overview of the chapter, discussing
reviewers' comments and proposed responses.
Overall, the subcommittee concluded that the chapters appear to be well
written and include interesting topics. The subcommittee agreed that teleconferences
should be scheduled in the next several weeks to review the remaining
five draft chapters. In addition to subcommittee members, teleconferences
will also include, whenever possible, NSB members who have been assigned
to the specific chapters being reviewed. Mary Poats will work with the
Board Office and SRS on scheduling arrangements.
|
h. International Issues in S&E (ISE)
|
Dr. Diana Natalicio reminded everyone that the Task Force issued two
preliminary reports: a "transition report" which was recently
sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and a guidance report requested
by the NSF director. With respect to the former, the task force discussed
Secretary Powell's response to the transition report as well as interactions
with the Department of State. Specifically, NSF is working on a program
to detail NSF staff to U.S. embassies for short periods of time. Some
33 embassies have requested temporary scientific expertise in a number
of areas and about a dozen NSF employees have volunteered to participate
in the program. To date, 9 possible matches have been identified.
With respect to the NSF guidance report, Dr. Colwell reported to the
task force that an internal NSF-wide group was established to look in
depth at NSF's international activities. That group has produced an interim
report and each of the Assistant Directors has been asked to comment on
the report and provide concrete recommendations. The objective of these
activities is to carefully formulate an action plan, which is likely to
be ready sometime this summer.
Finally, the task force discussed the preparation of the consolidated
final report. During this discussion it was confirmed that the audience
for the integrated report would be a broad one, including both the policy
and the science and engineering communities. Task force members were comfortable
with the revised report outline and the work done to date and agreed on
a process for producing the final report. The task force expects to present
it to the full Board before the November meeting.
|
i. Strategic S&E Policy Issues (SPI)
|
The Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues met
and discussed the results of the Symposium on Allocation of Federal Resources
for Science and Technology, May 21 and 22, and next steps toward producing
a final report. Members were pleased both with the discussions and attendance
at the Symposium. Next steps include compilation of comments from the
symposium and mail submissions, redrafting the discussion paper to incorporate
the comments and developing an outline for a broader final report for
submission to NSB at the August meeting; and preparing a final report
for consideration by NSB at the October meeting.
|
j. CPP Task Force on S&E Infrastructure (INF)
|
The task force heard presentations from the Assistant Directors for SBE,
GEO, ENG, and CISE, and from the Director of OPP. These presentations
provided valuable information concerning S&E infrastructure status,
needs and opportunities. The task force heard from the ADs for BIO and
MPS at its March meeting and will hear from EHR at the August meeting.
Dr. Colwell asked the task force to provide input in time to be used for
the FY 2004 budget cycle.
|
k. EHR Task Force on National Workforce Policies for S&E (NWP)
|
Continuing its review of available data the task force heard presentations
from (1) Dr. Lindsey Lowell, demographer at Georgetown University, on
the "State of Knowledge on the Flow of Foreign Science and Technology
Workers to the United States," (2) Dr. Susan Hackwood, Executive
Director of the California Council on Science and Technology on the "Critical
Path Analysis of California's S&T Education System," and (3)
Dr. Lawrence Burton, NFS/SRS, on "NSF Data on Mid-Career Training
and Education." A brief question and answer period followed each
presentation.
In executive session, the Task Force reached consensus to use the California
critical path analysis as a model for developing a framework for the Task
Force's report. It was noted that the Department of Labor, the National
Academy of Sciences, and the European Union have undertaken workforce
studies, and more information about their approaches could be helpful.
SRS was asked to gather information on these studies, provide additional
information on trends, and provide or identify a data expert who could
assist the Task Force. Members of the Task Force agreed that, considering
the work that remains to be done, the November 2001 deadline for their
report may need to be extended.
________________
Marta Cehelsky
Executive Officer
Attachment 1: NSB-01-93
Attachment 2: NSB-01-104
Back to NSB Meetings
|