[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 26, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-77
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-817 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
NICK LAMPSON, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JERRY MCNERNEY, California TOM FEENEY, Florida
LAURA RICHARDSON, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
February 26, 2008
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Biography.................................................... 22
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 30
Discussion....................................................... 30
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation.. 50
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board.......... 64
OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Oversight of the
National Science Foundation
tuesday, february 26, 2008
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will
hold a hearing to receive testimony from the Director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Chair of the National Science Board
(NSB) regarding NSF's fiscal year (FY) 2009 budget request and related
policy issues.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National
Science Foundation.
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman of the National
Science Board.
3. Overarching Questions
How does the FY 2009 budget request address the NSF
programs authorized in the America COMPETES Act, including math
and science education activities? How is NSF responding to the
policy directives in COMPETES, including those regarding
mentoring and ethics training for young scientists?
On what basis should NSF make decisions about how to
allocate budgets across education programs, including K-12,
undergraduate, and graduate programs? How will NSF's new
teacher education initiative balance priorities across the
programs that support K-12 education? Is there an appropriate
balance among the different modes of support for graduate
students (fellowships, traineeships, and research
assistantships)?
The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) set a
10-year doubling path for the physical sciences, engineering
and computer sciences, which had been flat-funded for several
years. What is NSF doing to ensure that the social, behavioral,
economic and biological sciences are appropriately integrated
and sufficiently funded under the often multi-disciplinary
research initiatives supported under ACI?
4. Summary of NSF FY 2009 Budget Request
The National Science Foundation is the primary source of federal
funding for non-medical basic research conducted at colleges and
universities and serves as a catalyst for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform at all levels. NSF
is one of the research agencies that the President, in his 2006 State
of the Union Address, proposed to double over ten years (beginning in
FY 2007) as part of the American Competitive Initiative (ACI). The
America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) called for an even more rapid,
seven-year doubling path for NSF and responded to a critical shortage
of well-trained K-12 STEM teachers by increasing funding for two
flagship NSF teacher education programs: The Noyce Teacher Scholarship
Program and the Math and Science Partnerships Program (MSP).
Both ACI and COMPETES have yet to be realized. The FY 2007
Appropriations CR resulted in only a 4.2 percent increase for NSF in
the first year of ACI--a ten year doubling requires approximately seven
percent/year growth. The FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill provides
$6.032 billion,\1\ a 2.5 percent increase over FY 2007. The
Administration's FY 2009 request for NSF is $6.854 billion, $822
million (13.6 percent) above the FY 2008 estimate, reflecting a
determination to keep NSF on the 10-year doubling path proposed under
ACI. (COMPETES authorized $7.326 billion for FY 2009, $472 million more
than the request.) However, the Administration provided only a nominal
increase for MSP and reduced the Noyce Program below the FY 2008
omnibus appropriations level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FY 2008 estimate is $33 million below the appropriated
level due to a rescission required by the Appropriators in the FY 2008
omnibus bill.
Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
Scientific research programs and research facilities (which
comprise the R&RA account) receive a $773 million (16 percent) increase
from FY 2008. In keeping with the Administration's emphasis on the
mathematical and physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences
under ACI, those directorates, in addition to cyberinfrastructure, each
receive an approximately 20 percent increase over FY 2008, while the
biological sciences (+10.3 percent) and social, behavioral and economic
sciences (+8.5 percent) receive more modest increases. The COMPETES Act
specifically called on NSF not to disinvest in the biological and
social sciences over the long-term, but did not assume that all fields
would receive equal increases each year.
NSF's contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) increases by only $8 million (2.1 percent) to $397
million, $30.6 million of which is directed toward research on the
environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology. The
Committee will be taking up a reauthorization of the NNI this spring.
NSF's contribution to another multi-agency program, the Networking and
Information Technology R&D Program (NITRD), increases by $159 million
(17 percent) to $1.09 billion. The entire budgets of both the Computer
Sciences and Cyberinfrastructure directorates are counted toward the
NITRD total.
As part of the FY 2009 request, NSF is launching three new cross-
Foundation initiatives: Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law ($20
million), Adaptive Systems Technology ($15 million) and Dynamics of
Water Processes in the Environment ($10 million). An initiative
launched in FY 2008, Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI), will
be doubled to $100 million. All of these initiatives repackage existing
research under new headings and it is unclear to what extent they
create new research directions or provide more money for existing
research. CDI and S&E Beyond Moore's Law are both captured within the
NITRD portfolio.
The COMPETES Act put special emphasis on increasing support for
young investigators, whose funding success rates sit about 10 percent
lower than more established investigators. The Administration request
includes $182 million (+$14 million) for CAREER grants, less than $2
million below the amount authorized in COMPETES. The Act also created a
new Pilot Program for Young Investigators to help provide seed funding
to first time principal investigators who, despite being recognized as
outstanding, are still disadvantaged by not having a track record of
previous funding. Based on staff conversations with NSF officials, NSF
is taking this new program seriously and is in the process of deciding
how best to implement it.
Since FY 2006, under a Memorandum of Agreement, NSF has been
responsible for reimbursing the U.S. Coast Guard for the costs of the
icebreakers that support scientific research in the Polar regions. The
request for FY 2009 is $54 million, a reduction of $3 million under a
recent agreement in which NSF is no longer supporting the Polar Star in
caretaker (i.e., mothballed) status. NSF will also continue to purchase
back-up ice-breaking services on the open market at a cost of
approximately $9 million in FY 2009.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
The MREFC activity funds the construction of large research
facilities, such as telescopes and research ships. Funding for the
design, operation and management of these major user facilities is
included in the R&RA budget.
The fiscal year 2009 MREFC budget is down by 33 percent to $147
million, in small part because of projects that were completed in FY
2008 and in much larger part because three design-stage projects: The
Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV), the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON) and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI)
are on hold pending the establishment of rigorous cost and schedule
baselines. As recently as last year, NSF put place-holders for these
projects in MREFC, but they have since established a ``zero-tolerance''
policy for cost-overruns. The only new project receiving funding in FY
2009 is the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), which will
receive $2.5 million for late-stage design work. This is the first time
that any design funds are requested from the MREFC Account, and NSF is
reviewing the policy for funding preconstruction design work in
general, as requested in COMPETES. In another break with prior
practice, the MREFC budget request does not include out-year funding
estimates for ATST and the newly available 2008 Facility Plan\2\ does
not include any horizon or ``readiness stage'' projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf0824/nsf0824.pdf
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
EHR funds most of NSF's activities that support K-12 STEM education
and the majority of activities that support undergraduate STEM
education. EHR also funds most of NSF's graduate fellowship and
traineeship programs. The FY 2009 request for EHR is $790.41 million,
an increase of $64.81 million (8.9 percent) over FY 2008, but $205
million short of the level authorized in COMPETES. The single biggest
increase of $28.6 million (32.5 percent) goes to the Graduate Research
Fellowship program. Overall, programs that support K-12 education,
including the Noyce Program, MSP, and Discovery Research K-12, increase
by only 4.6 percent, half of the total increase for EHR. NSF programs
to broaden participation, which includes programs in both R&RA and EHR,
increase by only $18.8 million (2.9 percent).
K-16 Programs
The Administration flat-funded or provided only meager increases
for a number of K-16 education programs slated for increases in
COMPETES, including the Noyce Program, MSP, the Advanced Technological
Education Program (ATE), and the STEM Talent Expansion Program.
Moreover, the Administration intends to fund the Noyce Program below
the appropriated level of $15 million in FY 2008. The rationale given
for flat-funding these programs (with the exception of MSP) is that
they have not yet undergone the rigorous evaluation required under the
Administration's Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) process. (For
background on ACC, see the charter from the June 6, 2007 Research
Subcommittee hearing on Federal STEM Education Programs.) Discovery
Research K-12, which supports applied research aimed at improving STEM
education at the K-12 level, fares the best of the three K-12 programs,
with an $8.5 million (8.5 percent) increase.
Graduate Research and Education (R&RA and EHR)
The two major NSF programs that support graduate students, the
Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRF) and the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research and Training Program (IGERT) take funds
from both R&RA and EHR. Both of these programs received special
attention in the COMPETES act for their role in nurturing the best and
brightest science and engineering students. While GRF is important for
the independence it affords graduate students to choose a research
advisor who might not otherwise be able to support another student,
IGERT is also an extremely well regarded and effective program that by
design supports cutting-edge interdisciplinary science through its
support for graduate students. In the FY 2009 request, NSF increases
GRF by 30 percent to $125 million while flat-funding IGERT at $64
million. The reason for this unbalanced treatment of two equally
important and effective graduate student programs is unclear. Another
large program that NSF lists under graduate education is the Graduate
Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12).
Broadening Participation
The single biggest increase for programs to broaden participation
goes to the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology
Program (+ $5.5 million or 22 percent), which supports research and
education infrastructure at minority-serving institutions. Three other
programs designed to increase participation by minority students, HBCU-
UP, LSAMP and TCUP, will receive a combined $3.5 million increase after
having received a $10.5 million increase to $83.4 million in FY 2008.
The ADVANCE program, which seeks to increase the numbers of tenure-
track women faculty in science and engineering disciplines, will
receive a 2.5 percent decrease to $20.8 million after having received a
25 percent increase in FY 2008.
Agency Operations and Award Management
This NSF account funds the internal operations of NSF. The FY 2009
request provides an increase of $23.3 million (8.3 percent) over FY
2008. AOAM was the one account that was nearly fully funded in the FY
2008 omnibus appropriations bill. Dr. Bement made it clear to Congress
that AOAM was his number one priority for funding in FY 2008. The NSF
workforce has been under increasing pressure as research budgets
increased, and the electronic system used to receive and process grant
applications is undergoing an upgrade in preparation for implementation
across the federal research enterprise.
5. Additional Policy Issues Addressed in COMPETES
The COMPETES Act contained a number of policy directives and report
requests not addressed in the FY 2009 budget request:
Sec. 7007 requires an NSB report, due in August,
evaluating the role of NSF in supporting interdisciplinary
research. The key issues are whether NSF has a clear policy for
the review of unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals, and
whether the research community is sufficiently informed about
where to submit such proposals.
Sec. 7008 requires that all NSF grant applications
that include funding to support post-doctoral researchers
include a description of the mentoring activities that will be
provided for such individuals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The widespread problem being addressed through this provision
is addressed in detail in a 2000 (but still relevant) report from the
National Academies: Enhancing the Post-doctoral Experience for
Scientists and Engineers. http://www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record-id=9831
Sec. 7009 requires universities funded by NSF to
provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible
and ethical conduct of research to students and trainees at all
levels, including post-doctoral researchers. The Manager's
Statement accompanying COMPETES directed NSF to provide written
guidelines to universities on what constitutes appropriate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
training.
Sec. 7010 requires that NSF make summaries of
research results publicly available in a timely manner. NSF was
already moving in this direction before COMPETES.
Sec. 7011 requires NSF to enforce its policy
regarding the sharing of research results by making any
researcher who fails to comply ineligible for future funding.
Sec. 7013 required NSB to evaluate NSF's policy on
cost-sharing. The Board has already responded with a report
presented to NSF in February.\4\ In short, NSB recommended
reinstating cost-sharing by industry for certain Centers
programs with significant industry participation, as well as
cost-sharing by states under the EPSCoR program. They also
issued a series of recommendations regarding management and
oversight of cost-shared grants. NSF is currently reviewing
NSB's recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/
rprt-congress-cs-policy.pdf
Sec. 7014 required NSB to review NSF's policies for
pre-construction funding and maintenance and operation costs of
MREFC projects. The Board also completed this report in
February (#NSB-08-15) and it should be online shortly. The gist
of the recommendations is that NSB should be more integrated
into the large facilities planning process and that MREFC funds
should be available for late-stage design activities. NSF is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
currently reviewing the Board's recommendations.
Sec. 7018 requires NSF to consider the degree to
which grant proposals address critical national science and
innovation needs.
Sec. 7020 requires a plan, due this month, to ensure
broadband access for all institutions of higher education
participating in NSF programs that require high-speed
networking.
Sec. 7022 requires a report, due in August, on the
impact and scope of the ``Broader Impacts'' grant review
criterion used by NSF.
Sec. 7032 requires a National Academies report, due
in August, on barriers to and strategies for greater diversity
in STEM fields.
Sec. 7033 authorizes NSF to establish a Hispanic-
Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program similar to a program
for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Sec. 7034 authorizes a new Professional Science
Masters program at NSF.
6. Questions for Witnesses
Dr. Bement
How does the FY 2009 budget request address the NSF
programs authorized in the America COMPETES Act, including math
and science education activities?
How has the planning and budgeting process changed
for major research facilities? Why doesn't the FY 2009 MREFC
budget request contain any out-year budget requests for the FY
2009 new start, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope?
Furthermore, there are no horizon projects listed in the 2008
Facility Plan. Are there any projects in readiness stage for FY
2010? If not, when can we expect to see a proposal for FY 2010
new-starts?
Please elaborate on the three new cross-Foundation
initiatives for FY 2009: Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's
Law, Adaptive Systems Technology, and Dynamics of Water
Processes in the Environment. How did these initiatives come
about? To what extent do they repackage existing efforts? What
new research directions are being funded under these
initiatives?
What is the role of NSF in promoting international
science cooperation? To what extent do you coordinate your
international efforts with the Department of State or other
federal agencies? In particular, what role do you have in
promoting scientific exchange with scientists in countries
whose research infrastructure lags behind that of United
States?
Dr. Beering
How has the planning and budgeting process changed
for major research facilities? How will the role of the Board
change in this process?
What is the appropriate role of NSF in promoting
international science cooperation? How should NSF coordinate
its international efforts with the Department of State and
other federal agencies? In particular, what role does or should
NSF have in promoting scientific exchange with scientists in
countries whose research infrastructure lags behind that of
United States?
Is the Board satisfied with the current funding level
for the Foundation's education programs and with the priorities
among categories of programs (K-12, undergraduate, and
graduate)? On what basis should NSF make decisions about how to
allocate budgets across education programs? In particular:
What are the highest priority NSF programs that
address K-12 STEM education, and in particular, please
comment on whether the Board has a view on the adequacy
of the FY09 budget request for the Robert Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program and the Math and Science
Partnerships?
Does the Board believe there is an appropriate
balance among the different modes of support for
graduate students (fellowships, traineeships, and
research assistantships)?
Chairman Baird. Our hearing will come to order now and good
morning. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on the National Science Foundation's
fiscal year 2009 budget request and related policy issues.
I am happy that despite the disappointment of the fiscal
year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, the Administration
remains determined to keep NSF on a doubling path, something
this committee has long and strongly advocated for. The strong
budget request for basic research at NSF is something that this
committee commends and fully supports and will work to advocate
with our colleagues.
I am happy to see that the education programs at NSF are
getting an increase, however, and this is a sentiment I believe
is shared by the overwhelming majority of my Committee
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am once again dismayed
at the treatment of the K through 12 education in the budget
request.
The top recommendation of the National Academies of
Science's Gathering Storm report was to place teachers who have
strong content knowledge and effective teaching skills in math
and science classrooms across America. The report cited a 10-
year old University of Texas UTeach Program as an example of
best practices for STEM teacher education.
Based on that success UTeach has already been taken as a
model by the State of California, as well as the private
sector. The COMPETES Act, passed by this committee and the
House last year, used the Academy's recommendations and UTeach
as the basis for restructuring NSF's Robert Noyce Teacher
Scholarship Program. It set out a funding trajectory that would
enable the program to reach the goal of 10,000 new STEM
teachers per year.
I am disappointed that the fiscal year 2009 budget request
for Noyce not only fails to reach the $103 million authorized
in COMPETES Act, but is actually below the fiscal year 2008
appropriations level.
I am also interested in learning more about NSF's decision
to apply all of the increases in Graduate Research and
Education to the Graduate Research Fellowship Program rather
than the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training
Program, since IGERT is also an extremely well-regarded and
effective program.
Beyond education, I would like to talk about the proposed
changes to the major research equipment and facilities
construction budget, as well as some changes proposed with
respect to the icebreaker fleet.
Finally, as a social scientist, I also want to say a word
about the social and behavioral sciences. While I understand
that not all fields will get an equal increase every year, I
want to reiterate the importance of social sciences to all of
the major challenges our nation is facing, including energy,
water, health, national security, and competitiveness.
Parenthetically I would mention that Dr. Marburger was here
last, two weeks ago, and underscored himself the importance of
social science.
I am interested in hearing from you today the justification
for the budget request for social, behavioral, and economics
directorate and to what extent, if any, the social sciences are
integrated into NSF's major research initiatives.
Finally, let me end on a positive note. I was pleased with
the request for a significant increase for the Office of
International Science and Engineering, and I look forward to
Dr. Bement's participation in an upcoming hearing which will
explore the role of federal agencies, including NSF, in
supporting international science and engineering cooperation.
I thank our outstanding witnesses, first of all, for your
great service to the country in the name of science, and also
for being here with us today.
And now it is my pleasure to recognize my dear friend and
colleague, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for an opening statement. Dr.
Ehlers.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning. Welcome to this Research and Science Education
Subcommittee hearing on the National Science Foundation's fiscal year
2009 budget request and related policy issues.
I am happy that, despite the disappointment of the Fiscal Year 2008
omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration remains determined to
keep NSF on a doubling-path. The strong budget request for basic
research at NSF is something that this committee commends and supports.
And I am happy to see that the education programs at NSF are
getting an increase. However--and this is a sentiment shared by the
overwhelming majority of my Committee colleagues on both sides of the
aisle--I am once again dismayed at the treatment of K-12 education in
the budget request.
The top recommendation of the National Academies of Science's
Gathering Storm report was to place teachers who have strong content
knowledge and effective teaching skills in math and science classrooms
across America. The report cited the 10-year old University of Texas
UTeach program as an example of best practices for STEM teacher
education. Based on its success, UTeach has already been taken as a
model by the State of California as well as the private sector.
The COMPETES Act used the Academies' recommendations and UTeach as
the basis for restructuring NSF's Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship
program. It set out a funding trajectory that would enable to program
to reach the goal of 10,000 new STEM teachers per year. I am
disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for Noyce not
only fails to reach the $103 million authorized in the COMPETES Act,
but is also below the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations level.
I am also interested in learning more about NSF's decision to apply
all of the increases in the graduate research and education to the
Graduate Research Fellowship Program, rather than the Integrative
Graduate Education and Research and Training (IGERT) Program since
IGERT is also an extremely well-regarded and effective program.
Beyond education, I would like to talk about the proposed changes
to the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction budget, as
well as some changes proposed with respect to the icebreaker fleet.
Finally, as a social scientist, I also want to say a word about the
social and behavioral sciences. While I understand that not all fields
will get equal increases every year, I want to reiterate the importance
of the social sciences to all of the major challenges our nation is
facing, including energy, water, health, national security and
competitiveness. I'm interested in hearing from you today the
justification for the budget request for the Social, Behavioral and
Economics directorate and to what extent, if any, the social sciences
are integrated into NSF's major research initiatives.
Finally, let me end on a positive note. I was pleased with the
request for a significant increase for the Office of International
Science and Engineering and I look forward to Dr. Bement's
participation in an upcoming hearing during which we will explore the
role of federal agencies, including NSF, in supporting international
science and engineering cooperation.
I thank you for being here today and I look forward to your
testimony. I now recognize my colleague Dr. Ehlers for an opening
statement.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome.
In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Administration
has requested increases for both the research and educational
mission of the National Science Foundation. However, the
proposed increases fall short of the authorizations provided in
the COMPETES Act of 2007, which established a seven-year
doubling path for the NSF. After a below-inflationary increase
provided in fiscal year 2008, due to no fault of the witnesses
or of those on the dais here, the NSF has fallen off the
doubling path. With a 13 percent increase requested for the
agency, coupled with less generous budgets for other agencies,
some even within the same funding subcommittee, NSF is going to
have to work hard to defend and justify the reasoning behind
the substantial increase. In order to return to the doubling
path in fiscal year 2009, I believe NSF should be funded at the
level authorized by the COMPETES Act.
Unfortunately, we know first hand what shortfalls means for
NSF. For the remainder of fiscal year 2008, NSF must defer
solicitations and facilities maintenance, will award 1,000
fewer research grants, fund 230 fewer research fellows, and
negatively impact more than 3,000 students and teachers. These
are just a few of the known impacts of the unanticipated
shortfall created by the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus. I am very
concerned that federal apathy to NSF is encouraging young
scientists to choose another career.
Finally, while I recognize NSF has defended the successes
of the Math and Science Partnerships, I am disappointed that
only a $2.5 million increase is requested for this program. As
reauthorized by the COMPETES Act, the Math and Science
Partnership Program has the potential to make a great impact on
science, technology, engineering, and math education in this
country. This is simply not possible within its current budget.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the new
initiatives proposed in the fiscal year 2009 budget, the
thriving programs bearing consistent fruit, and how we can work
together to implement the COMPETES Act.
Now, let me add a personal note here, and that is I
recognize that the objectives of the two witnesses are largely
the same as the objectives of those of us sitting up here. We
are a victim of forces beyond our immediate control,
particularly the passage of the Omnibus Bill last year. And
that is an issue that has to be addressed. I am very
disappointed with the results of the Omnibus Bill. I vowed to
vote against it no matter what was in it because I suspected
mischief. This happened a few years ago the last time we passed
an Omnibus Bill. NSF was one of the principle victims of that.
I do not know what the reasons are for, in the appropriations
process or within the committees within the House and the
Senate, but I am afraid that NSF appears to be an easy victim
to pilferage during an Omnibus appropriations process.
And I will do all I can, and I suspect my colleagues here
will join me, in saying we will never, ever support another
Omnibus Bill. We will do whatever we can to fight it.
I also have encouraged the White House and various members
working in the White House, including the President, to, if
another Omnibus is presented, to flatly reject it and tell the
Appropriations Committees to go back and do their work the way
they are supposed to do it.
It is unconscionable to me that a small group of
individuals succeed in destroying an excellent organization
such as the National Science Foundation by arbitrarily cutting
the funding without considering all the factors that go into
the operation of the organization.
So you have our sympathies. You are here defending the
indefensible in the sense that the budget presented is based
largely on what was passed last year, and you have our
sympathies. We are with you. It is essential for us to work
together to make certain that the funding increases and that we
do not have another Omnibus Bill disaster this coming year.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Administration has
requested increases for both the research and educational mission of
the National Science Foundation. However, the proposed increases fall
short of the authorizations provided in the COMPETES Act of 2007, which
established a seven-year doubling path for the NSF. After a below-
inflationary increase provided in FY08, NSF has fallen off the doubling
path. With a 13 percent increase requested for the agency coupled with
less-generous budgets for other agencies, some even within the same
funding subcommittee, NSF is going to have to work hard to defend and
justify the reasoning behind the substantial increase. In order to
return to the doubling path in FY09, I believe NSF should be funded at
the level authorized by the COMPETES Act.
Unfortunately, we know first-hand what shortfalls mean for NSF. For
the remainder of FY08 NSF must defer solicitations and facilities
maintenance, will award 1,000 fewer research grants, fund 230 fewer
research fellows, and negatively impact more than 3,000 students and
teachers. These are just a few of the known impacts of the
unanticipated shortfall created by the FY08 omnibus. I am very
concerned that federal apathy to NSF is encouraging young scientists is
to choose another career.
Finally, while I recognize NSF has defended the successes of the
Math and Science Partnerships, I am disappointed that only a $2.5
million increase is requested for this program. As reauthorized by the
COMPETES Act, the MSP program has the potential to make a great impact
on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in this
country. This is simply not possible with its current budget.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the new
initiatives proposed in the FY09 budget, the thriving programs bearing
consistent fruit, and how we can work together to implement the
COMPETES Act.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers, thanks for your comments and
your passion in this. I share that, you know. It is--if we look
at this budget and it is posing some substantial increases, but
as we all know here, the budget that proposes increases without
the weight of an Administration fighting to sustain those
increases really won't mean anything down the road, and indeed,
the result of the appropriations process and the Omnibus, which
I also did not support, was because of an Administration
mandate to reduce 20 some billion dollars out of that. Much of
that cost, unfortunately, fell to NSF and some other agencies.
So it is a nice thing to put forward a budget that calls
for increases. It certainly beats the reverse. So we are happy
about that, but in and of itself is not enough. And so we share
the concern about that and the gentlemen here are not
responsible for that. You worked very hard to put forward a
sound budget, and we are grateful for that.
I want to acknowledge the presence of Dr. McNerney and Dr.
Lipinski. Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. As is the custom
of the Committee, if there are any Members who wish to submit
opening remarks for the record, we are happy to introduce
those.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also welcome Drs. Bement and
Beering today to testify on the National Science Foundation budget
plans for fiscal year 2009 and how those plans will fund programs in
the America COMPETES Act, as well as current NSF initiatives.
The National Science Foundation is our nation's premier supporter
of research and development in the physical sciences. NSF also plays a
key role in math and science education programs.
Over the years, NSF has enabled under-represented and minority
populations to attain degrees in these fields and to excel. I want to
commend the foundation for this work.
When the President signed the America COMPETES Act into law and
expressed interest in investment into American competitiveness
initiative programs, a new era began.
NSF is now tasked with utilizing limited financial resources to
support an expanded number and size of programs.
Members of this committee are interested in a dialogue with you on
how you will accomplish funding objectives, and we support your
efforts.
I would like for you to particularly keep the ``Broadening
Participation'' programs in mind, like the Noyce Teacher Scholarship,
and others that I will submit in my written testimony today and as
additional budget ``Views and Estimates'' published by this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Supplemental material: key NSF programs that broaden participation
by under-represented groups.
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Talent
Expansion Program (STEP)
Advanced Technology Education (ATE)
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR)
Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science--Sec
7026 of COMPETES Act
Hispanic-serving Institutions Undergraduate Program--
Sec 7033 of COMPETES Act
Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program
Informal Science Education (ISE)
ADVANCE Women's Program
Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC)
Graduate Research Fellowships--Women in Engineering
and Computer Science
Opportunities to Enhance Diversity in the Geosciences
(OEDG)
Minority Post-Docs
Graduate Research Diversity (GRD)--ENG
Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and
Science (SOARS)--GEO
Chairman Baird. The Chair will now introduce our witnesses,
and if ever there is a case where the introduction I am giving
is understated, giving the distinguished careers of these two
gentlemen, please forgive us. In the interest of hearing your
wisdom we will keep the introductions brief.
But Dr. Arden Bement is the Director of the National
Science Foundation. Dr. Steven Beering is the Chairman of the
National Science Board. Very brief introductions for some
extraordinary careers.
As our witnesses should know well from prior testimony
here, spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, but that is
really designed to hit the highlights and then we will have a
good exchange. And always I want to invite, especially
gentlemen such as yourselves, if there are things that we don't
cover in our questions but you feel you want to elaborate on,
please, this is a friendly process and feel free to elaborate
on that.
We will start our testimony with Dr. Bement. Thank you
again.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may before reading my
prepared remarks, I want to reflect on your opening remarks.
In spite of the '08 Omnibus Bill I want to express on
behalf of the National Science Foundation our deep gratitude
for the very strong support this committee gave our entire
budget but also the programs within the budget.
I also want to express our appreciation for the confidence
you have shown us in increasing the education authorization and
the specific programs in the America COMPETES Act. I believe
that we have outstanding programs, and they are very much in
the interest of the Nation, and I appreciate your support.
Going on with my remarks, I am pleased to present the
National Science Foundation----
Chairman Baird. We won't count that against you. We don't
count compliments of the Committee against your time, your
five-minute time. Doctor, I should acknowledge, also, the
various directorates that are along here with you today. We
want to thank them for their work. They probably won't be
testifying, but thank you for coming and for your work.
Please proceed, Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Thank you. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the National Science Foundation's budget for the 2009
fiscal year.
NSF proposes an investment of $6.85 billion to advance the
frontiers of science and engineering research and education.
Our budget request includes an increase of $789 million or 13
percent over fiscal year 2008. This increase is necessary to
put NSF back on the course that was chartered by the America
COMPETES Act and the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative.
This budget reflects the Administration's continued resolve
to double overall funding for the NSF within 10 years.
I would also like to thank you for recognizing the
importance of our Agency Operations and Award Management
account in the 2008 Omnibus appropriation. Our stewardship
activities allow us to serve award recipients with tools such
as the new grants management website, research.gov, and this is
a tough account to get strong support.
The timing of this testimony coincides with a period of
economic uncertainty in our country. I have come here today to
tell you that an investment in the National Science Foundation
is an investment in America's economic security. NSF provides
two essential ingredients of a healthy, high-tech economy;
basic research discoveries and a highly-trained work force.
For over 50 years NSF has been the foundation of
innovation, fostering great ideas and the great minds who
discover them. NSF discoveries have led to many of the
technological innovations you and I take for granted today, and
yet for fiscal year 2008 NSF's budget increase fails to keep up
with inflation.
By contrast, other nations of the world are steadily
increasing their investments in STEM education and basic R&D. I
assure you multi-national companies will have no problem
relocating their operations to the countries where they can
find the best-trained workforce and the latest research ideas.
The world is changing. Lead times for new products are
shrinking. Now more than ever basic research discoveries are
essential to keeping the wheels of innovation turning in
America's high-tech companies. It is not nearly enough to
maintain the federal R&D investment status quo. It is our
solemn obligation to keep up with corporate America's demand
for innovative people and ideas.
At NSF we are responsible to emerging potentially
transformative areas of research. I would like to highlight
some of our new cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary initiatives.
We created these initiatives in response to the input we
received from the research communities we serve.
We request $100 million to continue Cyber-enabled Discovery
and Innovation, our bold five-year initiative to apply
revolutionary computational tools and concepts to all fields of
science, engineering, and education.
Our request includes $20 million for Science and
Engineering beyond Moore's Law. This initiative aims to
position the United States at the forefront of communications
and computation, moving us beyond the limitations of current
systems.
We are requesting $15 million to fund Adaptive Systems
Technology, our new effort aimed at using all aspects of
biological science to inspire transformative new technologies.
Our request of $10 million for the Dynamics of Water
Processes in the Environment initiative will bring together
researchers from various disciplines to enhance our ability to
understand the complexities of fresh water systems at regional
and local levels.
In addition to our ongoing efforts in transformative
research, we believe that a truly competitive workforce is one
that reflects the full potential and diversity of the American
people themselves. Our efforts to broaden participation in
science and technology targets students at all education levels
and from all geographic areas. We train the Nation's skilled
workforce by providing research opportunities for
undergraduates, graduate students, and post docs.
We research and evaluate effective STEM curricula for the
Nation's K to 12 classrooms and provide opportunities for
teacher education, and we develop innovative programs for
informal science and technology learning for students young and
old in museums, through the mass media, and through other
outreach activities that touch the imaginations of millions of
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, time does not permit me to describe the many
other numerous activities NSF sponsors to strengthen and
support our nation's science and technology research and
education. NSF's relatively small size belies its catalytic
impact on all sectors of the economy. I am hard pressed to
think of another example in which the taxpayers derive such a
tremendous return on investment.
Thank you for extending me the invitation to speak with
this subcommittee today, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to present the National Science Foundation's
budget for the 2009 fiscal year.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) proposes a fiscal year 2009
investment of $6.85 billion to advance the frontiers of research and
education in science and engineering. Our budget request includes an
increase of $789 million--or 13 percent--over the current fiscal year
2008 amount. This increase is necessary to put NSF back on the course
that was charted by the President's American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI) and by the America COMPETES Act. This year's budget reflects the
Administration's continued resolve to double overall funding for the
ACI research agencies within 10 years.
An investment in the National Science Foundation is a direct
investment in America's economic security. In fact, without a solid
basic research foundation for our high-tech economy, no economic
security is possible. Basic research under-pins all of the technology
that constitutes the lifeblood of today's global market. America's
sustained economic prosperity is based in part on technological
innovation resulting from previous fundamental science and engineering
research. Innovation and technology are engines of the American
economy, and advances in science and engineering provide the fuel.
While the United States still leads the world in its level of
public and private R&D investment, our counterparts around the globe
are well aware of the importance of funding R&D. A string of recent
reports have found evidence that China is rapidly accruing global
technological standing, including an OECD finding that China was set to
become the second-highest investor in R&D among world nations in 2006,
behind only the United States.\1\,\2\,\3\ Over
the last two decades, U.S. federal support of research in the physical
sciences, mathematics, and engineering has been stagnant when adjusted
for inflation. As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. Federal Government has
halved its investment in physical science and engineering research
since 1970. Conversely, the Chinese government has more than doubled
its GDP percentage expenditure in R&D since 1995.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.oecd.org/document/26/
0,2340,en-2649-201185-37770522-
1-1-1-1,00.html
\2\ http://www.tpac.gatech.edu/hti2007/
HTI2007ReportNSF-012208.pdf
\3\ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07319/pdf/nsf07319.pdf
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More than a dozen major studies have now concluded that a
substantial increase in federal funding for basic scientific research
is critical to ensure the preeminence of America's scientific and
technological enterprise.
Just recently, Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin,
released a follow-up to ``The Gathering Storm'' report entitled, ``Is
America Falling Off the Flat Earth?'' His message is clear: ``Unless
substantial investments are made to the engine of innovation--basic
scientific research and development--the current generation may be the
first in our country's history to leave their children and
grandchildren a lower sustained standard of living.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Augustine, Norman. Is America Falling off the Flat Earth?
National Academies Press.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For over fifty years, NSF has been a steward of the Nation's
science and engineering enterprise. NSF investments in discovery,
learning, and innovation have been important to increasing America's
economic strength, global competitiveness, national security and
overall quality of life.
With its relatively small size, NSF delivers an enormous ``bang for
the buck'' of Federal Government research and development (R&D)
investment. NSF represents just four percent of the total federal
budget for research and development, but accounts for a full fifty
percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions.
NSF is the research funding lifeline for many fields and emerging
interdisciplines at the frontiers of discovery. In fact, NSF is the
only federal agency that supports all fields of basic science and
engineering research.
NSF relies on a merit-based, competitive process that is critical
to fostering the highest standards of excellence and accountability--
standards that have been emulated at other funding agencies around the
world.
NSF Supports American Innovation
The Foundation of Innovation
NSF often funds a technology in its earliest stages, frequently
before other agencies or industries get involved. NSF funding was
involved in the developmental phase of the technology used in magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) now ubiquitous in diagnostic medicine, the
research that led to the development of silicon-coated glass used in
flat panel displays, and the early investigations that led to green and
blue light-emitting diodes used in cell phone displays and traffic
lights. In 1952, Caltech Professor Max Delbruck used one of NSF's first
grants to invent molecular biology techniques that enabled one of his
students, James Watson, to discover the molecular structure of DNA, and
another Nobel laureate, David Baltimore, to unravel some of its
mysteries.
In a more recent example, NSF CAREER awardee Jay Keasling, now the
head of the NSF-sponsored Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center
at the University of California-Berkeley, and two post-doctoral
researchers from his lab founded Amyris, a company that is taking a
revolutionary approach to chemical manufacturing by harnessing
metabolic processes in microorganisms. Through genetic engineering, the
researchers ``program'' the microbes to churn out useful chemicals,
bypassing traditional, more expensive methods. Amyris has engineered a
strain of yeast that can produce large quantities of artemisinic acid,
a precursor to a compound found naturally in a plant that fights
malaria but is currently in short supply. Amyris is also developing a
fermentation process to deliver a biofuel gasoline substitute. NSF
funding of the early research conducted at Berkeley enabled the
discoveries that led to this promising new company, named 2007
``Business Leader of the Year'' by Scientific American magazine.
NSF as an agency is itself the origin of transformative practices.
One new NSF innovation is Research.gov, which is fulfilling our vision
of a seamless interface between government funding agencies and the
investigators we support. Research.gov is a one-stop shop, where
researchers can go to manage their existing portfolio of grants and
explore new opportunities. Research.gov is a tool that streamlines the
process of applying for federal grants, making it easier and more cost-
effective for the Federal Government to serve its customers.
Educating Tomorrow's Workforce
Beyond all of our efforts to advance the frontiers of knowledge and
spur innovation, NSF is dedicated to educating and training the
Nation's skilled labor force. NSF plays a role in science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) education at every educational level. Our
contribution to education may ultimately be NSF's most profound and
meaningful legacy.
The scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians
trained through NSF's integration of research and education transfer
the latest scientific and engineering concepts from universities
directly to the entrepreneurial sector when they enter the workforce.
Our graduate research fellowship (GRF) program has supported
several notable technologists and scientists early in their
professional training. Prominent economist Steven Levitt, co-author of
the popular book Freakonomics, was an NSF GRF recipient from 1992 to
1994. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was an NSF graduate research
fellow in the mid-1990s when he began thinking about how to create an
Internet search engine. NSF's GRF program is as old as the foundation
itself, and gives young scientists an early career charge, allowing
them to go on to greatness. At least three Physics Nobel Prize winners
are former NSF GRF recipients. We are extremely pleased with the
proposed $29 million increase in the GRF program's funding for fiscal
year 2009 which will enable us to fund an additional 700 promising
young American investigators. A recent article from the National Bureau
of Economic Research suggests that an increase in the number of GRF
awards would help to supply an increased demand for talented
individuals in the American science and technology workforce that will
result from an increase in R&D spending.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Freeman, Richard. The Market for Scientists and Engineers. NBER
Reporter, 2007 No. 3, pp. 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point in their careers, nearly 200 Nobel Prize-winning
scientists received NSF funding for research in chemistry, physics,
medicine, and economics. And scores of NSF-supported scientists shared
a measure of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as members of the United
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
To strengthen the educational institutions that benefit from NSF
awards, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)
program, Innovation through Institutional Integration (I3), challenges
institutions to think strategically about the creative integration of
NSF-funded awards. This provides the opportunity for NSF-grantees at
particular institutions to cooperate and share a common vision for
improved educational excellence at their institution.
America COMPETES Act Compliance
The America COMPETES Act contains several requirements for NSF. We
are actively processing those directives and devising plans to
implement them in a timely manner. In the FY 2009 request, activities
that overlap with the President's American Competitiveness Initiative
receive top priority. These priority areas do include strong links to
other fields, and our request includes across-the-board increases for
all directorates.
We are currently evaluating how to best ramp up the Robert Noyce
Teacher Scholarship Program to bring an infusion of talented teachers
into the Nation's K-12 education system. To launch such a large-scale
program, we will carefully evaluate what we need to do to maximize its
societal impact and success. We will apply what we have learned from
our other successful scholarship programs to ensure the program is
administered in the best possible way.
We are also working how best to evaluate grant applicants' plans
for training undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs in
responsible and ethical conduct of research. A number of our programs
including our Centers and the Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship (IGERT) program already contain ethics components.
We will add a new certification requirement for institutions, which
will require the institution to have a plan in place to provide
appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical
conduct of research for all undergraduates, graduate students, and
post-docs participating in the NSF-funded research project.
Open access to research results is an essential component of a
strong and healthy scientific enterprise. We currently make available
the citations of NSF-funded research on both the NSF website and on
Research.gov. To further the goal of disseminating the results of NSF-
funded research, we will develop revised reporting guidelines for NSF
principle investigators (PIs). These guidelines will enable the PIs to
summarize the key accomplishments of their NSF-funded work, including
scientific findings, student training, and professional development
activities. This information will be made available on the NSF website.
2009 Budget Request Highlights
At NSF, we understand that new discoveries are the main driving
force behind societal progress. As the Nation's premier funding agency
for basic research, our mission is to advance the frontiers of
knowledge, where high-risk, high-reward research can lay the foundation
for revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems.
The NSF budget for 2009 reflects this vital agenda, and I'm pleased to
present it to you today.
Let me begin with the big picture. As noted earlier, the President
is requesting $6.85 billion for the NSF in FY 2009. That's an increase
of almost $789 million, or 13 percent above the current 2008
appropriated amount. While it seems like a large increase, this level
is necessary to fulfill the President's vision for physical science and
basic research set forth in the American Competitiveness Initiative.
The FY 2009 request is squarely in line with the goal of doubling of
ACI research agency budgets over 10 years. This increased investment
will reinforce NSF's leadership in basic science and engineering and
allow us to preserve America's preeminence in the global technology
economy.
In this year's proposed budget, funding levels increase for every
major NSF appropriations account. Research and Related Activities
investments increase by 16 percent, and our Education and Human
Resources account is increased by 8.9 percent. We need rapid progress
in these areas to stimulate the discoveries in research we need to
maintain our standing in the global marketplace, and to keep our
students engaged and ready to perform in the global workforce. Our
budget includes increases for every Directorate and Office within NSF.
Here are highlights of some of the key investments we are
emphasizing in our 2009 budget.
Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation
Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) is expected to create
revolutionary science and engineering research results using
``computational thinking''--thinking that encompasses all possible
computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms, and tools.
Computational thinking is relevant to all fields of science,
engineering and education, and promises to have a profound impact on
our nation's ability to generate and apply new knowledge. We expect CDI
research to produce paradigm shifts in our understanding of a wide
range of science and engineering phenomena, and we anticipate socio-
technical innovations to create new wealth and enhance the national
quality of life. By investing in CDI, NSF continues its leadership in
enabling the United States to preserve its role as the world leader in
information technology.
Requested Funding Level: $100 million
Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law
``Moore's Law'' refers to the empirical observation made in 1965 by
Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that the speed of computer processing
based on semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18
months. With current silicon technology, we expect to reach the
physical and conceptual limits of Moore's Law within 20 years. If we
are ever to solve the computational challenges inherent in today's
great scientific questions, we must find a way to take computing power
and communications beyond Moore's Law. To get there, we'll need
entirely new scientific, engineering, and conceptual frameworks.
Fundamental research across many disciplines will be called upon to
deliver the new hardware, architectures, algorithms, and software of
the computers of tomorrow.
Requested Funding Level: $20 million
Adaptive Systems Technology
Recent progress in probing the secrets of biological systems has
been explosive. We are only just beginning to see the application of
these new and transformational discoveries to the development of
engineered systems, especially at the interface between human and
machines. We call our new interdisciplinary endeavor--research at the
convergence of human and mechanical systems--Adaptive Systems
Technology (AST). New applications and technologies resulting from AST
have already demonstrated substantial economic potential. Artificial
retinas and cochlea, electronic language translators, and smart hand-
held electronics are just a handful of the products that have already
come to market at the human-machine interface. NSF's broad portfolio
encompasses the diverse research areas involved in this new
interdisciplinary effort. Biologists uncover nature's progression from
simple to complex nervous systems; physicists and chemists explain the
fundamental processes underlying complex neural organization and
communication pathways; mathematicians, computer scientists and
cognitive scientists explore how systems compute; learning and
behavioral scientists provide insights into how organisms learn and
adapt to their environment; while engineers allow the design, analysis
and construction of systems that mimic living nervous system networks.
By working together, these scientists and engineers can benefit from
the knowledge and experience of experts in other fields, developing new
concepts through collaboration and idea-sharing.
Requested Funding Level: $15 million
Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment
This activity will build upon NSF's considerable track record on
fundamental water research, while utilizing our unique ability to cross
disciplinary boundaries to bring together the separate communities of
researchers working on the varying aspects of water science. Water is
fundamental to every economic activity in the country, and yet, we do
not have a full understanding of the effects of human interventions and
changing environmental conditions on the availability and quality of
fresh water. The economic driving forces for understanding water
processes are compelling: droughts alone cause average damages of $6 to
$8 billion dollars annual in the United States. Understanding water
dynamics is also essential to understanding climate and environmental
change. NSF's investment in Dynamics of Water Processes in the
Environment will enhance our ability to understand complex freshwater
systems at regional and local levels, taking advantage of advanced
observation networks, cyberinfrastructure, and integrated databases.
Requested Funding Level: $10 million
National Nanotechnology Initiative
NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and we remain
strongly committed to supporting this vital emerging industry. Our goal
is to support fundamental research and catalyze synergistic science and
engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale
science and technology. We are also committed to research directed at
the environmental, health, and safety impacts of nanotechnology. Novel
materials, devices, and systems--with their building blocks designed on
the scale of nanometers--open up new directions in science,
engineering, and technology with potentially profound implications for
society. With the capacity to control and manipulate matter at this
scale, science, engineering, and technology are realizing revolutionary
advances in areas such as individualized pharmaceuticals, new drug
delivery systems, more resilient materials and fabrics, catalysts for
industry, and order-of-magnitude faster computer chips.
Requested Funding Level: $397 million
Climate Change Science Program
Scientists predict that the climate of the Earth is changing
rapidly, and we have much to learn about how climate affects human
activities, how human activities affect climate, and what we can do to
protect human life and health in the face of disruptive climate events.
The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was established in 2002 in
response to the challenge of understanding climate and climate
variability. Science-based knowledge is absolutely essential to our
ability to predict the changes that are likely to take place, and
devise informed plans to mitigate the negative impacts of climate
change on humanity. The CCSP engages thirteen U.S. agencies in a
concerted interagency program of basic research, comprehensive
observations, integrative modeling, and development of products for
decision-makers. Consistent with the FY 2009 Interagency Implementation
Priorities memo, NSF provides support for the broad range of
fundamental research activities that form a sound basis for other
mission-oriented agencies in the CCSP, and the Nation at large.
Building on our agency's particular strengths, NSF encourages
interdisciplinary activities and focuses particularly on Earth system
processes and the consequences of change. Our priorities include the
management of enormous amount of data necessary for accurate global
change modeling and research, the refinement and improvement of
computational models, and the development of new, innovative Earth
observing instruments and platforms.
Requested Funding Level: $221 million
International Science and Engineering
International collaboration is essential to the health of the
Nation's research enterprise. The importance of international
partnership continues to increase as globalization ``shrinks'' our
world. Consequently, our funding request for the Office of
International Science and Engineering is increased by nearly 15 percent
to $47.4 million. A major focus in our budget is the Partnerships for
International Research and Education (PIRE) program, which increases by
$3.0 million to $15.0 million. This program funds innovative,
international collaborative research projects that link U.S.
institutions and researchers at all career levels with premier
international collaborators to work at the most promising frontiers of
new knowledge.
Broadening Participation
NSF remains a leader in efforts to broaden participation in science
and engineering, so that America's science and engineering enterprise
is as diverse as the Nation from which it draws its workforce. Our 2009
request for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
(EPSCoR) program increases to $113.5 million. We are also increasing
our request for several programs designed to reach out to under-
represented groups, including Alliances for Graduate Education and
Professoriate (AGEP), the Historically Black Colleges and Universities-
Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), the Louis Stokes Alliances for
Minority Participation (LSAMP), and Centers of Research Excellence in
Science and Technology (CREST).
Enhancing Opportunities for Beginning Researchers (CAREER)
The 2009 request provides an increase of approximately $14 million
for funding of the CAREER program. This increase will allow us to award
some 34 more CAREER awards than in FY 2008. CAREER awards support
exceptionally promising college and university junior faculty who are
committed to the integration of research and education. Our experience
with previous CAREER awardees has proven that these faculty become the
research leaders of their respective fields, and this program is vital
to fostering the success of emerging science and technology leaders.
Requested Funding Level: $182 million
Stewardship
NSF's Stewardship goal, to support excellence in science and
engineering research and education through a capable and responsive
organization, remains a priority in the 2009 budget, with a 13 percent
increase to $404.3 million. Our request increases the NSF workforce by
50 staff to enable us to manage our growing and increasingly complex
workload. Investments in information technology (IT) increase by 32
percent to $82.0 million, with an emphasis on increasing the
efficiency, productivity, and transparency of NSF's business processes.
In this request, NSF's IT portfolio is realigned to tie funding for
mission-related activities more directly to NSF's programs.
Requested Funding Level: $404 million
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account
NSF will continue to support a portfolio of ongoing projects in the
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account (MREFC),
including the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, Ice Cube, and Advanced
LIGO.
The Foundation continues to be committed to the Alaska Regional
Research Vessel (ARRV), the National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). However, in
keeping with new NSF policies, Administration and Congressional
mandates, and guidance from the National Science Board, NSF has adopted
more stringent budget and schedule controls to improve our stewardship
of taxpayer dollars. We are postponing requests for additional funding
for those projects until they have undergone a final design review,
completed a risk management plan, and developed a rigorous baseline
budget, including carefully considered contingencies.
NSF's MREFC portfolio includes late-stage design-phase funding for
the proposed Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), which if
carried into the construction phase would be the first large U.S. solar
telescope built in the past 30 years. ATST would reveal critical
information needed to explore crucial mysteries such as: What are the
mechanisms responsible for solar flares, coronal mass ejections and
space weather, with their associated impact on satellites,
communications networks, and power grids? What are the processes that
cause solar variability and its impact on the Earth's climate and
evolution? The ATST project is managed by the National Solar
Observatory, which administers the world's leading collection of solar
telescopes.
Requested Funding Level: $2.5 million
Concluding Remarks
Mr. Chairman, I've touched on just a handful of programs found in
NSF's diverse and vibrant portfolio. NSF's research and education
activities support the Nation's innovation enterprise. America's
present and future strength, prosperity and global preeminence depend
directly on fundamental research. This is not merely rhetoric; the
scientific and economic record of the past 30 years is proof that an
investment in R&D is an investment in a secure future.
NSF may not be the largest agency that funds science and
engineering research, but our size serves to keep us nimble. Our
portfolio is continually evolving as we identify and pursue new
research at the frontiers of knowledge. An essential part of our
mission is to constantly rethink old categories and traditional
perspectives. This ability is more important than ever, as conventional
boundaries constantly shift and disappear--boundaries between nations,
between disciplines, between science and engineering, and between what
is basic and what is applied. NSF, with its mandate to support all
fields of science and engineering, is uniquely positioned to meet the
needs of researchers exploring human knowledge at these interfaces,
whether we're organizing interdisciplinary conferences, enabling cyber-
sharing of data and information, or encouraging new collaborations and
partnerships across disciplinary and national borders. No other
government agency comes close to our flexibility in STEM education and
basic research.
In today's high-tech economy, the supply of new jobs is
inextricably linked to the health of the Nation's innovation endeavor.
NSF is involved in all aspects of innovation; NSF not only funds the
discoveries that directly become the innovations of tomorrow, we also
fund discoveries that lead to still more discoveries that lead to the
innovations of tomorrow, and, perhaps most critically, we train the
technologists who dream up the discoveries that lead to the discoveries
and innovations of tomorrow.
Industry increasingly relies on government support for high-risk,
high-reward basic research. If we fail to provide adequate support of
the technological sector now, we may well reduce our own economic
security. It is no accident that our country's most productive and
competitive industries are those that benefited the most from sustained
federal investments in R&D--including computers and communications,
semiconductors, biotechnology, and aerospace.
As we look to the century ahead of us, we face the reality that the
other nations in this world are eager to create jobs and robust
economies for their citizens. In this context, ``globalization'' is
shorthand for a complex, permanent, and challenging environment that
calls for sustainable, long-term responses, not just short-term fixes.
Regardless of our action or inaction as a nation, the world is full of
highly motivated and increasingly skilled workers who are working hard
to improve their economic standing and well-being. We can either
innovate, and keep our economic prosperity, or stagnate, and suffer the
consequences of inaction.
Despite some of the more pessimistic forecasts of some observers, I
believe that America can continue to be on the leading edge of ideas
and research. Through strong federal leadership, we can maintain the
standing of our businesses and universities. We must not only maintain
our position, we must actively seek to increase our strengths:
leadership in fundamental discovery, including high-risk, high-reward
transformational research, state-of-the-art facilities and
infrastructure, and a world-class S&E workforce. With a firm commitment
to these fundamental building blocks of our high-tech economy, we can
solidify America's role as the world leader in innovation.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief
overview has given you a taste of just how very important the National
Science Foundation and its activities are to the future prosperity of
the United States. I look forward to working with you in months ahead,
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science
Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since
February 22, 2004.
He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of
NIST, he oversaw an agency with an annual budget of about $773 million
and an on-site research and administrative staff of about 3,000,
complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally managed
manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers
across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST Director,
Bement served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear
Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue
University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the
schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical
and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the
Krannert School of Management. He was Director of the Midwest
Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent
Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
Bement came to the position as NIST Director having previously
served as head of that agency's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology, the agency's primary private-sector policy adviser; as head
of the advisory committee for NIST's Advanced Technology Program; and
on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award.
Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of
the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF
activities and also serves as a policy advisory body to the President
and Congress. As NSF Director, Bement now serves as an ex officio
member of the NSB.
He currently serves as a member of the U.S. National Commission for
UNESCO and serves as the Vice-Chair of the Commission's Natural
Sciences and Engineering Committee.
Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in
industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice
President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW
Inc. (1980-1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (1979-1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
(1976-1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970-1976); Manager,
Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and Senior Research
Associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a Director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado
School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, an honorary
doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University, an
honorary doctorate degree in engineering from the Colorado School of
Mines, and a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary
Professorship. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE
BOARD
Dr. Beering. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member
Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. I very much appreciate
the opportunity to address you today. My name is Steven
Beering, and I am the Chairman of the National Science Board. I
am honored to represent the 24 members of this Board before you
today.
Let me first thank the Members of the Subcommittee for your
long-term commitment and support of the National Science
Foundation and its investments in a broad portfolio of research
and education. We also applaud your strong bipartisan support
for legislation over the past year that will bolster U.S.
leadership in science and technology, including the passage of
H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act.
The National Science Board and the broader science and
engineering community were surprised and disappointed by the
actual appropriations in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Bill,
which erased most of the anticipated increases in support for
research. In such an uncertain funding climate we are concerned
with the signal this sends to our potential partners in
international science projects, but also the message we send to
international and American students who may be deterred from
pursuing science and engineering careers in this country.
As many other countries invest heavily in science and
engineering research, graduate a record number of scientists
and engineers, and increase incentives to attract outstanding
international students and scholars, it is a dangerous time for
the U.S. to neglect our science and engineering enterprise.
The National Science Board is committed to helping this
country maintain our leadership in science and technology. In
addition to its policy and oversight role at NSF, the Board has
also addressed a number of significant policy issues for U.S.
science and engineering. The Board is working, for example,
with NSF to implement recommendations in several recent
education reports, including a ``National Action Plan for
Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Education System,'' ``Moving
Forward to Improve Engineering Education,'' the ``Hurricane
Warning, the Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research
Initiative,'' ``Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at
the National Science Foundation,'' and the ``Science and
Engineering Indicators 2008,'' which includes the ``Digest of
Key Science and Engineering Indicators'' and the companion
piece policy statement entitled, ``Research and Development:
Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global
Economy.''
We will be introducing an additional report next month on
``International Science and Engineering Partnerships, A
Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation
Enterprise.''
In response to the America COMPETES Act, the Board has
undertaken a number of actions. We recently sent reports to
Congress to make recommendations on NSF policies regarding cost
sharing and on pre-construction and management and operations
cost coverage under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction Account and will be preparing a final report for
Congress on this subject this year.
The Board is also reviewing the impacts of NSF policies on
interdisciplinary research and on limiting the number of
proposals per institution of higher education for some awards.
The Board will report back to Congress on both of these issues
by August of this year. Finally, the Board will evaluate a
pilot program of grants for new investigators at NSF and report
the findings to Congress by August of 2010.
For fiscal year 2009, the request for the National Science
Board is $4.03 million, an increase of 1.5 percent over fiscal
year 2008. Next year's budget will allow the Board to
strengthen its oversight in policy duties for NSF and provide
independent scientific advice for the President and Congress.
In addition, the Board will continue to increase
communication and outreach with all of our stakeholders. For
example, we continue to engage with numerous stakeholders to
implement recommendations from our STEM Education Action Plan.
The National Science Board supports the fiscal year 2009
budget for NSF and for basic science research in other agencies
at the President's request, so that we can begin to make up for
the opportunities that we will miss this year under the fiscal
year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.
You have my pledge on behalf of the Board that we will
continue to work closely with the NSF Director to insure that
funding decisions continue to provide maximum returns on the
taxpayers' investment and our nation's future.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven C. Beering
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. My name is Steven
Beering, and I am the Chairman of the National Science Board. I am
honored to represent the twenty-four members of the National Science
Board before you today.
On behalf of the entire National Science Board,\1\ I would like to
thank the Members of this Subcommittee for your long-term commitment in
support of the National Science Foundation and its investments in a
broad portfolio of research and education in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. We also applaud your strong bipartisan
support for legislation over the past year that will bolster U.S.
leadership in science and technology, including the passage of H.R.
2272, the America COMPETES Act, last August. The science and
engineering communities were also encouraged to see that this committee
recommended increases in funding for basic scientific research in the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
last year. With the President and Congress in agreement about the
importance of science and engineering research and education for U.S.
innovation and competitiveness, the stakeholders in science and
engineering research and education looked forward to advances in
discovery and innovation that would be enabled by the promised budget
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Science Board was established by Congress in the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to oversee the activities of
the National Science Foundation and to serve as an independent advisory
body to the President and Congress on national policy issues related to
science and engineering research and education. The twenty-four members
of the Board are national leaders in diverse areas of science and
engineering research and education from around the country, who are
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve six-
year terms. The NSF Director also serves as an ex-officio member of the
Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Science Board and the broader science and engineering
community were surprised and disappointed by the actual appropriations
in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus bill, which erased most of the
anticipated increases in support for research. Now, instead of
expanding research activities as planned, we are confronted with the
possibility of layoffs for outstanding researchers in our National
Laboratories and the frustrating reality that our federal research
funding programs will be forced to turn away many innovative ideas that
would have received awards if funding had been in keeping with the
objective of doubling over 10 years for NSF, National Institute of
Science and Technology in Department of Commerce, and the Office of
Science at the Department of Energy.
The 2008 omnibus bill has significantly impacted the National
Science Foundation's mission to support basic research in the United
States. The 1.3 percent increase in the research and related activities
budget is below the rate of inflation, and thus represents a decline in
support for these activities. If the FY 2008 omnibus were in line with
the budget doubling that was supported by the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act, NSF estimates
that they would have been able to award 1,000 more grants and 230 more
graduate research fellowships this year. NSF has also shelved several
program solicitations that were planned for 2008, including a new
program in Computer and Information Science and Engineering for the
development of a competitive workforce and the Office of Polar
Programs' program on Climate Change and Changing Seasonality in the
Arctic program.
In such an uncertain funding climate, we are concerned with the
signal this sends to our potential partners in international science
projects but also the signal sent to international and American
students who may be deterred from pursuing science and engineering
careers in this country. As many other countries invest heavily in
science and engineering research, graduate a record number of
scientists and engineers, and increase incentives to attract
outstanding international students and scholars, it is a dangerous time
for the U.S. to neglect our science and engineering enterprise.
Although the United States is still the world leader in science,
technology, and engineering, the findings of the National Science Board
and of many other eminent bodies representing a wide range of
perspectives, from think tanks, industry, academia, and government,
indicate that urgent and sustained action is required to maintain our
leadership. During these difficult economic times, when industry may be
forced to cut back basic research investments for short-term survival,
it is particularly critical for the Federal Government to ensure our
innovative capacity through basic research and workforce training in
science and engineering. The American public agrees: the National
Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 reports that
according to the most recent NSF survey, in 2006, public support for
federal investments in basic scientific research is at its highest
level since inception of the survey in 1979.
Overview of National Science Board Activities in FY 2007-2008
The National Science Board is committed to helping this country
maintain our leadership in science and technology. Over the past year,
in its oversight role for NSF, it has reviewed and endorsed the Office
of Inspector General's Semi-annual Reports to Congress and approved the
NSF management response; we approved the Foundation's Budget Submission
for transmittal to OMB; reviewed the Foundation's annual Merit Review
Report; and provided review and decisions on major awards or proposal
funding requests for 13 awards, with a total approved funding of over
$1.08 billion.
The Board also addressed a number of significant policy issues for
U.S. science and engineering, in accord with our statutory mission--far
more than I will have time or space to describe here. I would like to
briefly outline the Board's conclusions from a number of reports it has
issued, and also to present our priorities for the upcoming year.
First, I will highlight some of our major accomplishments,
including those activities that specifically address Congressional
concerns.
NSF Oversight and Policy Directions
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education--
The Board is working with NSF to implement recommendations in several
recent education reports. In October, the Board released A National
Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System in response
to a request from Congress. The report outlines a number of actions
that local, State, and federal stakeholders can take to improve the
Nation's STEM education system. In that report, the Board first
recommends greater coherence in the STEM education system, vertically
across grade levels and horizontally across States. The second priority
recommendation is to ensure that students are taught by well-prepared
and highly effective teachers. A number of NSF programs are identified
specifically as contributing to the development of human capital in the
science and engineering workforce, including STEM teachers. These
include Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP),
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), the Robert Noyce
Scholarship program, and the Math and Science Partnerships program as
examples of NSF programs that prepare effective teachers. We are
pleased to see that the budget provides additional funds for MSP, the
Noyce Scholarship and other programs that contribute to the Board's
objectives for the STEM teaching workforce.
Another report, Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education,
recommended a number of actions for NSF to build upon its innovative
programs in engineering education to attract, retain, and train
American engineers from diverse backgrounds to meet domestic needs and
growing international competition.
Transformative Research--Occasionally in the course of scientific
research endeavors, a new finding revolutionizes a field or creates new
sub-fields of discovery. The willingness of review panels to take risks
on potentially transformative proposals is an area of continual
attention at the National Science Foundation in keeping with its
mission to support discovery through funding basic research. We
recognize that risk aversion in recommendations for funding by review
panels is likely to increase as funding becomes increasingly
competitive. However, we also recognize that our nation cannot afford
to miss out on revolutionary ideas. Therefore, the Board formed a task
force on transformative research, which issued a report last May
entitled Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National
Science Foundation. In the report, the Board recommends that NSF
implement a Transformative Research Initiative, and is currently
working with the NSF to implement this recommendation.
Implementation of the America COMPETES Act--In response to the
America COMPETES Act, the Board has undertaken a number of actions. The
Board recently sent reports to Congress to make recommendations on NSF
policies regarding cost-sharing and on pre-construction and management
and operations cost coverage under the Major Research Equipment and
Facilities Construction (MREFC) account, and will be preparing a final
report for Congress on this subject this year. To briefly summarize the
findings of these reports:
The National Science Board has statutory
responsibility for the oversight of activities funded from the
MREFC account. It is a substantial challenge to prioritize and
manage MREFCs, and the Board is exploring the best solution for
ensuring solid analyses of science needs, construction costs,
and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs in the ``MREFC
process'' and to define how the Board can contribute in the
oversight process. In particular, the Board recommends that
better estimates of lifetime costs be obtained in the pre-
construction planning phase of a project.
A 2004 NSB policy eliminated the cost-sharing
requirement for research grants and cooperative agreements. The
Board recommends changes in the 2004 cost-sharing policy,
including reinstatement of mandatory cost-sharing for certain
programs.
I would be happy to meet with you at a later date to elaborate on
the Board's policy activities or respond to any questions concerning
any or all of these important policy concerns.
The Board is also reviewing the impacts of NSF policies on
interdisciplinary research and on limiting the number of proposals per
institution of higher education for some awards. The Board will report
back to Congress on both of these issues by August 2008. Finally, the
Board will evaluate a pilot program of grants for new investigators at
NSF and report the findings to Congress by August, 2010.
Advice to the President and Congress
Science & Engineering Indicators--One of the highlights of the year
was the recent release of Science and Engineering Indicators 2008,
which the Board transmits to the President and Congress every even
numbered year. It is the most comprehensive series of indicators on the
state of the U.S. science and engineering enterprise in a global
context. The 2008 Indicators tell a mixed story. A sample of findings
include:
The U.S. is the largest, single, R&D-performing
nation in the world supplying an estimated $340 billion for R&D
in 2006, a record high. However, federal obligations for all
academic research (basic and applied) declined in real terms
between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to drop further in 2006
and 2007. This would be the first multi-year decline for
federal support for academic research since 1982.
Basic research accounted for 18 percent of total R&D,
or $62 billion. The Federal Government supplied about 60
percent of all basic research funds, industry about 17 percent,
with private foundations, academic institutions and other
governmental entities supplying the rest.
U.S. grade school students continue to lag behind
other developed countries in science and math, although fourth
and eighth grade U.S. students showed steady gains in math
since 1990. Only fourth graders showed gains in science
compared to 1996.
The U.S. sustained a relative economic advantage over
other developed and developing economies. The U.S. is a leading
producer in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive
services, but several Asian countries, led by China, have
rapidly increased their global market share. The U.S.
comparative advantage in exports of high-technology products
has eroded: the U.S. trade balance in advanced technology
products shifted from surplus to deficit starting in 2002.
Information and communications products geographically
concentrated in Asia--particularly China and Malaysia--account
for this deficit.
U.S. public support for government funding of
scientific research is strong and growing. In a 2006 survey, 87
percent of Americans supported government funding for basic
research, up from 80 percent in past surveys dating back to
1979. Also, Americans who said the government spends too little
on scientific research grew from 34 percent to 41 percent
between 2002 and 2006.
Diversity has increased in the academic science and
engineering labor force. From 1973 to 2006, in the academic,
doctoral labor force the share of women increased from nine
percent to 33 percent, of under-represented minorities
(African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaska
Natives) from two percent to eight percent, and of Asian/
Pacific Islanders from four percent to 14 percent.
Along with Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the Board has
prepared two additional reports: Digest of Key Science and Engineering
Indicators 2008 and a Companion Piece policy statement: Research and
Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global
Economy. The first report was developed to encourage broad use of
Indicators data. It includes a set of 20 important indicators, and is
structured for ease of understanding and to provide linkages to more
extensive discussions and data in the main Indicators volumes that are
related to the selected indicators. The second, Companion Piece, report
expresses Board concerns with industry and federal investment in U.S.
R&D, especially basic research and academic research, and offers
recommendations on improving our understanding of global trends in
industrial science and technology and implications for the U.S. economy
and jobs.
International Partnerships
The Board's Task Force on International Science conducted a series
of roundtable discussions and meetings to examine the role of the U.S.
Government in international S&E partnerships. The task force prepared a
report on their findings, which was approved at the December 2007
meeting and will be released in March 2008. The report, International
Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign
Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise (NSB-08-4), recommends
that the U.S. strengthen S&E partnerships with other countries.
The NSF Office of International Science and Engineering should be
more active in encouraging international partnerships between NSF
funded Principal Investigators and scientists and engineers in other
countries, especially developing countries. In a global world, such
partnerships enable us to leverage growing basic research investments
in other countries. For example, partnerships would help to share costs
of research on common global challenges such as sustainable energy,
climate change, natural disasters, disease pandemics, and the fight
against terrorism. In addition, the Board believes that S&E
partnerships could be utilized more broadly for diplomacy. We also
would like to see more formal, high level cooperation in S&E among
federal agencies through NSTC. Opinion polls show that countries with
very unfavorable views of the U.S. in general still overwhelmingly
admire U.S. science and technology. For example, scientific
collaborations with Russia improved goodwill between the countries
after the Cold War and helped to ensure that nuclear technology was
adequately protected; collaborations with countries such as Iran could
serve a similar purpose today.
Hurricane Research--Hurricanes account for over half of total
weather-related damage in the U.S. Stimulated by the devastation after
Hurricane Katrina, the National Science Board convened a Task Force on
Hurricane Science and Engineering. In January of 2007, it unveiled the
National Hurricane Research Initiative (NHRI) in the report, Hurricane
Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research
Initiative. The proposed NHRI would establish highly focused priorities
that involve industry, academia, and government in addressing research
gaps and in applying research findings to operations that could help us
to mitigate the destructive impacts of future hurricanes.
FY 2009 Budget Request
National Science Foundation
The National Science Board reviewed and approved the FY 2009 budget
request that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. The
Board supports the President's budget request. The $6.85 billion
request represents an increase of nearly $789 million, or 13 percent,
above FY 2008 levels. The request is the first step toward doubling the
budgets of several agencies including NSF, the National Institute of
Science and Technology, Department of Commerce, and the Office of
Science, Department of Energy, over 10 years and is critical for
realizing the goals of the bipartisan competitiveness agenda that will
help to maintain U.S. leadership in scientific and engineering research
and education.
The NSF already receives many more outstanding research proposals
that we can fund, so I assure you that the budget increase will be put
to good use. The proposed 13 percent budget increase will provide
funding for 1,370 more outstanding research proposals and 3,075 more
Graduate Research Fellowships to support our most promising young
American scientists--tomorrow's innovators. Support for graduate
education is one of NSF's fundamental responsibilities. The Board
continues to examine the best ways to financially support the future
generation of scientists and engineers during graduate education.
Although it is clear that financial support in any form--whether
scholarship, assistantship, or traineeship--is important for success in
graduate school, the Board continues to consider how the mechanisms for
support contribute to the achievement of a range of objectives for
graduate education, including adaptations to ensure American scientists
and engineers can compete with scientists and engineers from around the
world.
National Science Board
For FY 2009, the request for the National Science Board is $4.03
million, an increase of $61,000, or 1.5 percent, over the FY 2008
estimate of $3.97 million. The FY 2009 budget will allow the Board to
strengthen its oversight and policy duties for NSF and to provide
independent scientific advice for the President and Congress. In
addition, the Board will continue to increase communication and
outreach with universities, industry, the science and engineering
research community, Congress, federal science and technology agencies,
and the public. For example, we continue to engage with numerous
stakeholders to implement recommendations from our STEM education
action plan.
This year, the Board will continue to expand our role in approving
MREFC projects, address the topic of sustainable energy through a
series of roundtables, review the NSF cost-sharing policy, review the
impact of multiple proposals on institutions, and analyze support for
interdisciplinary research. In addition, by August 2010, the Board will
submit to Congress a report of findings and recommendations on the NSF
pilot program of grants for new investigators that was established by
the America COMPETES Act.
The Board also has been re-examining the policy for recompetition
and renewal of awards at NSF. In 1997, the Board approved a statement
on competition, recompetition, and renewal of NSF awards. The Board
assessed the implementation of the statement, and issued a statement to
reaffirm the 1997 statement at their last meeting. The Board endorses
strongly the principle that all expiring awards, including major
facility awards, are to be recompeted, and believes that peer-reviewed
competition and recompetition is the process most likely to assure the
best use of NSF funds for supporting research and education.
One of the most significant activities over the next two years is
to plan content for Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 and to
consider whether we should prepare a second round of the Digest of Key
Science and Engineering Indicators (that was pilot tested with
Indicators 2008) for the 2010 volume of Indicators. The Board is
already soliciting input on the 2008 Indicators and Digest to determine
how we can improve the 2010 version to address the concerns of the
various communities who rely on this comprehensive and objective set of
data to craft policies that foster discovery and innovation through
science and engineering. We will also be presenting the findings of our
policy Companion Piece to Indicators to a range of stakeholder
audiences to discuss possible responses to our recommendations. To this
point we have held two roll-out events for Indicators 2008, on Capitol
Hill and at the Chamber of Commerce. We have held additional
discussions with spokespersons from the Department of Commerce and with
the members of the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable
at the National Academies on data issues and policy concerns
highlighted in our Companion Piece, Research and Development: Essential
Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy.
A priority for the Board during the upcoming year is sustainable
energy. In October 2007, the Board established the Task force on
Sustainable Energy to address the science and engineering challenges
related to sustainable energy. The Task Force held the first of a
series of roundtable discussions earlier this month on the role of the
Federal Government, businesses, non-profits, and other U.S.
stakeholders in addressing the S&E challenges of sustainable energy.
The Task Force will continue to meet with stakeholders in order to
inform a forthcoming report that will contain recommendations for
implementing a nationally coordinated initiative in S&E research and
education for sustainable energy.
Closing Remarks
The Board strongly recommends that Congress fund in full the
President's budget request for the National Science Foundation and for
basic scientific research at other agencies. Amidst the great economic
and political uncertainty of the moment, the importance of research and
development for innovation and economic growth is undeniable. NSF-
funded research and education provides the foundation for American
scientific and technological greatness. The economic growth and the
quality of life that we enjoyed in the 20th century were made possible
in large part by technological discoveries and innovations. In
addition, we need science and engineering advances more than ever to
tackle some of the greatest challenges that we have ever faced,
including climate change, national security, and sustainable energy
production.
I understand that investments in science and technology compete
with a host of other funding priorities. Though it might be tempting to
forego the long-term investments in the face of short-term challenges,
neglecting scientific research and education now will have serious
consequences for the future of our country. We must bear in mind that
investments in our scientific and technological workforce,
infrastructure, and basic research are not luxuries--they are critical
for long-term prosperity and security. As other countries now actively
seek to emulate our success by building their own innovation
infrastructures, we must be ever vigilant to enhance our own innovative
capacity.
Based on the President's budget request and the appropriations bill
from this committee last year, it appears that both parties of Congress
and the White House appreciate the importance of scientific research
and education for our country. The FY 2009 budget for NSF and for basic
science research in other agencies at the level of the President's
request can begin to make up for the opportunities that we will miss
this year under the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill. You have my
pledge on behalf of the Board that we will continue to work closely
with the NSF Director to ensure that funding decisions continue to
provide maximum returns on the taxpayers' investment in our nation's
future.
Cited Board Documents
Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (NSB-08-2),
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest08/, January 15, 2008.
Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science
Foundation (NSB-07-32), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/
tr-report.pdf, May 7, 2007.
Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research
Initiative (NSB-06-115), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/
hurricane/final-report.pdf
International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S.
Foreign Policy and Our Nation's Innovation Enterprise (NSB-08-
04) (forthcoming, March 2008).
Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education (NSB-07-122), http://
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf, November 19, 2007.
``NSB Statement on Competition, Recompetition, and Renewal of NSF
Awards'' (NSB-08-16), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/
nsb0816-statement.pdf
Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness
in a Global Economy (NSB-08-3), http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
nsb0803/start.htm, January 15, 2008.
``Report to Congress on Cost-sharing Policies at NSF'' (NSB-08-17),
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/
rprt-congress-cs-policy.pdf,
February 7, 2008.
Report to Congress on Pre-construction Funding and Maintenance and
Operations Costs Associated with Major Research Equipment and
Facilities at NSF'' (NSB-08-15) (Forthcoming).
``Resolution: National Science Board-Competition and Recompetition of
NSF Awards'' (NSB-08-12), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/
2008/nsb0812-comp-recomp.pdf
Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (NSB-08-1), http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/seind08/, January 15, 2008.
Biography for Steven C. Beering
Steven C. Beering received B.S. and M.D. degrees and an honorary
Doctor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Before
becoming President of Purdue in 1983, he served for a decade as Dean of
Medicine and Director of the Indiana University Medical Center. He
holds appointments as Professor of Medicine at Indiana University and
Professor of Pharmacology at Purdue University. He retired from the
Purdue presidency in 2000.
He served on active duty with the USAF Medical Corps from May 1957
to June 1969, achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel.
Beering has held numerous national offices, including the
chairmanship of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the
Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the
National Library of Medicine.
He is also a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the
Royal Society of Medicine, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy.
He serves on a number of national and corporate boards, including
NiSource Inc., Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, Inc., Community
Foundation of Northern Indiana, CID Corporation, and Marquis Who's Who.
He is a Trustee of the University of Pittsburgh, and the Universities
Research Association, and is Director Emeritus of the Purdue Research
Foundation.
Beering was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002,
reappointed in 2004, and elected Chairman in 2006.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you both. We have been joined by
Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas. Ms. Johnson, thank you for
joining us, who has been a champion of women and minority
issues in science and actually that is a nice segue to one of
the questions I wanted to ask.
We had a very informative hearing awhile back on issues
pertaining particularly to women's role in science. Donna
Shalala was here, Dr. Olsen as well, testified, and I noted
with some concern I think as I read the budget, a proposal to
reduce funding for ADVANCE, and ADVANCE was one of the programs
that had been cited that if used well, particularly effective
in changing, making the kind of institutional-wide cultural
changes that lead to retention. One of the issues that came up
clearly in our hearing was that we have a fair number of women
in the science pipeline coming out of high schools, fair number
entering college, but at the upper levels we have a dramatic
drop off, and ADVANCE seems to do some of the cultural things
to change that.
Could you comment a little bit about that, if you would,
and what else is being done as manifested in the budget to
address women and the minority role in science?
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADVANCE is a program that is jointly funded by our Research
and Related Activities Account and also our EHR account. We do
plan a solicitation in '08, in spite of the reduced funding in
'08. We have some funding flexibility in '09, that if we have
meritorious awards that we would like to fund, we will try and
find additional funding to do that.
Chairman Baird. So it sounds like you feel fairly committed
to the program as well still.
Dr. Bement. Yes, we are very committed to the program.
Chairman Baird. Talk to us a little bit, if you would,
about the role of international science. One of the things this
committee, I mentioned earlier, is going to focus a great deal
on is scientific diplomacy and international scientific
collaboration. If you could address some of those programs as
reflected in this budget and in your perspective on their role
in the mission. Dr. Beering and Dr. Bement. Either.
Dr. Beering. Thank you. As I mentioned, we are going to
have a full report forthcoming very shortly, we hope by the
28th of March. Our first priority in the International Science
Taskforce has been to generate a clear, coherent, and
integrated National strategy. Our second priority is to balance
U.S. foreign policy with the R&D policy, and the third priority
is to enhance global mobility of scientists and engineers.
When our taskforce met in Brussels on the occasion of the
50th anniversary of the European Union, and I must admit I
hadn't realized they had been at it for 50 years, we were
thrilled by their openness and their willingness to share
scientific knowledge across national boundaries. Science is an
international language, and knowledge has no boundaries. And it
wasn't a question of financial support. It was a question of
willingness to share and to work together.
And so we would like to see that our international science
efforts can be coordinated to become a true instrument of
international policy.
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you. The international activities of
the National Science Foundation are not only very broad but
also very appreciated throughout the world. And it is very
difficult to summarize briefly the full scope of activities in
our international programs, so with your permission I would
like to submit for the record a summary report on those
activities. [Please refer to NSF's response to questions for
the record submitted by Subcommittee Chairman Baird. For
reference, the specific question is: Please provide a summary
of all international science and engineering cooperation
activities at NSF, including the relevant budget allocations.]
But they include a broad range of research collaborations,
not only with the developed economies but also with the
developing economies throughout the world. It includes
institutional interactions. I should also say up front that we
only fund the U.S. part of those interactions on a true
partnership basis. We engage in exchanges of undergraduate,
graduate, and post-doc students to give them a research
experience in different parts of the world. We engage in
international organizations such as UNESCO and OECD and the
World Bank to help promote capacity building in the developing
world.
And we are also a principle player on most of the bilateral
exchanges that are coordinated by the State Department. In
fact, in just the last three or four weeks I have spoken to the
science counselors of all the major embassies here in
Washington, and I have had two luncheons with key ambassadors,
especially in Europe, hosted by Under Secretary Dobriansky.
So a good bit of my time and my Deputy's time and also our
Assistant Director's time is spent engaged in these types of
international activities.
Chairman Baird. We applaud that, and we look forward to the
hearing.
Two other quick comments and then I will recognize my
friend, Mr. Ehlers. You mentioned, Dr. Beering, hurricane
warning process and clearly we need to make improvements in
that area and improve our accuracy and location, magnitude, et
cetera.
But this is chance for me to also raise a question I asked
earlier about the social sciences as well. I have spoken to
some hurricane forecasters, and actually, if you look at
Katrina, we were pretty good. They were pretty good, not we,
but they were pretty good in terms of saying where it was going
to hit, what its magnitude was, what the potential impacts
were, et cetera. The challenge was not so much the accuracy of
the prediction of timing, location, and magnitude, it was
partly getting people to pay attention. And that seems to me to
be a social science issue.
And I note that the budget for social science research is
actually a good bit less in terms of its increase than is the
budget for other areas of the overall budget proposal. If you,
either of you would care to talk about that, I would appreciate
that.
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you. Social science at the National
Science Foundation is integrated throughout the Foundation. It
threads through the Foundation. And it is especially important
in areas of national need. You mentioned disruptive storm
events like hurricanes, but it also plays a critical role in
terrorism, homeland security, and most of our cross-foundation
initiatives. You will find it in environmental health and
safety with regard to nanotechnology.
And you are correct that it is important to understand how
decisions are made because Katrina, after all, was not just a
natural disaster. It was a human disaster as well, and it fell
far short of adequate performance among the key decision-
makers.
So we very much support social science. With regard to the
allocation of resources, social science in terms of dollar
amount has in the '09 budget one of the largest incremental
increases in years. Biosciences has the largest increase in
about eight years. We not only had to pay attention to their
role throughout all of our programs in the Foundation, but
alignment of our overall program to the goals of the American
Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act.
So the main objective is to be sure we have healthy
increases in all the programs but also to pay attention to the
alignment.
Chairman Baird. I respect and understand that. I will just
underscore that the America COMPETES Act was explicit that
social sciences should share in the increase. It has to a
degree, but I have concerns.
Dr. Bement. I agree.
Chairman Baird. I will recognize my distinguished
colleague, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I do want to comment the majority for the
beautiful redecoration of this room. It looks very nice. I
assume we will soon return the portraits and perhaps disturb
the decor.
Chairman Baird. We are looking for an alternative to
Tennyson by the way if anyone wants to offer that.
Mr. Ehlers. Just don't try changing the Bible quote.
Anyway, I think it would be nice, however, if you could
turn the heat back on.
Chairman Baird. We are lowering our carbon footprints.
Mr. Ehlers. Anyway, Dr. Bement, an essential element in
this submission is support for science and engineering
education from pre-K through grad school and beyond. I would
appreciate if you could explain why your new budget, fiscal
year 2009 budget, does not include funding for many of the NSF
STEM education activities authorized in the COMPETES Act?
And I know you are short of money, but I would just like to
know the rationale.
Dr. Bement. Yes. We are short on money. First of all, let
me take the Math and Science Partnership Program. I think the
increase there was about two and one-half million, which in
some of these terms, doesn't look like a lot, but it is a
turnaround from where we were two or three years ago, where we
were declining at the rate of our mortgage payments with very
little flexibility for new starts.
Now, the budget in '09 will allow us to not only cover our
continuing grants but to invest $15 million in new starts. So
we expect to have about 15 to 17 new awards. Now, that is a big
change, and most of that change came about as a result of our
assessments over the last two years that demonstrated very
clearly that we are making tremendous headway in our math and
science partnership school districts and schools in improving
math education and also science education at almost all levels.
The only problem is at the middle school level for science, but
in all other categories there is very positive improvement.
In some of the other programs the assessments either
haven't been completed, or they are still in progress, and
under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and the establishment
of the Academic Competitiveness Council, the philosophy is
``show me.'' Show me that these programs are effective through
rigorous third-party assessments before the funding increases.
And so that is the environment under which we are currently
operating. I am very optimistic, however, that our programs are
strong and the assessments that are currently underway will be
positive, and we will be able to grow those budgets and get
them closer to the authorization levels.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. And Dr. Beering, you have put a lot
of work into developing the National Action Plan for STEM
Education, and I am curious what feedback the National Science
Board has received on that report and to what extent the Board
is still involved with implementing some of its
recommendations. In particular, how the fiscal year 2009 budget
reflects any role that NSF might have in that.
Dr. Beering. Thank you. First of all, we get personal
support and encouragement. I think by and large there has been
a National consensus that we need to have a change in attitude
and commitment and to bring education, particularly science
education, into the curriculum very early on.
The big problem is the logistics of 95,000 different school
board members, and that is where the pushback has also come. We
had a hearing in this very room here a few months ago where
that came out, as you recall, and nonetheless, I feel that
there is broad-based support for the major recommendations of
having horizontal and vertical alignment and having the
teachers better prepared than they are now.
There is concern that teachers don't stay in the profession
long enough. There is concern that they are not paid at the
level of their counterparts in business and industry with
similar preparation, and I have had a lot of reactions from
business and industry that is in agreement with that perception
and that hopes to be helpful to us.
So the early results of that have been very pleasing to us,
and I think we will continue to make progress.
Mr. Ehlers. Let me ask you, though, vertical and horizontal
alignment of standards. That brings forward another issue that
I have been preaching about for several years, and in fact,
Senator Dodd and I have introduced a bill trying to develop
voluntary National standards for the sciences.
I think we have tremendous problems in this country because
of the diversity of governments of the schools with the local
school boards, the state boards of education, and so forth. But
then in addition beyond that, because we are such an incredibly
mobile society, a student can take classes in one school
building, move 10 miles, and find the sequence of subjects is
different.
Do you think the vertical and horizontal alignment will
take care of that, or do you think we should develop these
voluntary standards, which I would hope would at least take
care of the sequencing and the major components. These would
not be mandatory but at least would be good suggestions.
I would appreciate your comments on that.
Dr. Beering. I think, again, there is agreement that
voluntary standards would be quite helpful. There is a concern
that any proposed legislation would mandate a federal
coordinating council rather than a voluntary coordinating
organization as we have proposed, and I think that is the
single issue that I have had the most comment on from people,
wondering are we really serious about having a non-federal
coordinating council, and if so, that would be alright, and
that would be helpful.
Mr. Ehlers. Yeah, and I think there would be general
agreement in the Congress that that would be good as well, as
long as it is established well, and it has the ability to
operate in a way that will produce results.
I see my time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Beering, in your
written testimony you indicate that there is a growing public
support for increasing federal funding for research, for
scientific research. Do you attribute that to awareness of the
link between that kind of expenditure and our national economic
well-being? And if so, and even if not so, what do you propose
or what do you recommend in terms of keeping that enthusiasm
alive and growing for public support?
Dr. Beering. I think people are increasingly aware of the
scientific advances that are being publicized through the
media, and they are hopeful that this will produce Nirvana and
long life and health and happiness, and it is more a hope than
a reality in many instances.
But I am happy that there is this positive support rather
than the opposite.
Mr. McNerney. There are no recommendations how to continue
to grow that public support?
Dr. Beering. I don't have any special ones. No.
Mr. McNerney. Well, okay. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for coming here today, and I,
certainly you will find fewer people, you will find nobody that
is more sympathetic toward funding for science education than
myself and members of this committee here.
You indicated that since 1970, the federal investment in
physical sciences has been halved as a percentage of GDP. At
the same time we know that our competitors like India and China
are increasing their support. And in fact, an often repeated
phrase, the Chinese are putting out more English-speaking
engineers per year than the Americans are now.
So do you believe there is a direct correlation between
federal funding and the number of engineers and scientists that
we are turning out?
Dr. Bement. Absolutely. I should point out that almost all
the funding provided to the National Science Foundation
supports our innovation system one way or the other. For
example, our research grants are actually used to train and
educate graduate students who go right into the innovation
system. Our graduate fellowships and traineeships have very
much the same purpose.
The problem is that the growth in demand for scientists and
engineers is increasing at about five percent per year, but the
growth in degrees is only increasing at about one and one-half
percent per year.
Furthermore, we are reaching a period where baby boomers
are retiring at an ever-increasing rate, so that many of our
federal labs, whether they are defense or non-defense are going
to start hollowing out before too long.
Mr. McNerney. So by supplying the men, then you would
expect there to be increasing salary offers for these types of
trained people.
Dr. Bement. I think over a career you would find that these
are very lucrative career paths. China and India have gotten
the message that what is driving the economy in a knowledge
environment is education and investment in research. So both
India and China are investing quite substantial sums in
improving the quality of their education, especially at the
graduate levels, masters and Ph.D. programs.
And the equation there is very simple. If you produce the
high-level talent, industry will find their way to your
doorstop. And if you look at the writings of Craig Barrett,
Norm Augustine, they are the Cassandras that see the future
quite clearly because they are in the process of seeing this
migration begin to take place.
And I believe we only have a reasonable period of time
before we address this question. That is why our budget for
'09, is highly skewed to train the graduate students and to
provide the fellowships and traineeships that will begin to
address this in the near-term rather than the longer-term.
Mr. McNerney. Well, that sort of segues into my next
question was that the COMPETES Act does authorize a new pilot
program for young investigators that don't have the reputation
to get the big grants. Do we expect to see that program
implemented in some form in the coming fiscal year?
Dr. Bement. We currently have working groups working on all
the sections of the America COMPETES Act to figure out, first
of all, how to come into compliance with all the requirements
in the Act, and we are making good progress on that. Also to
begin designing the new programs that are called for in the
Act. Some of those I think we can start in '08, but we need the
flexibility in '09 to really bring them up to a decent level.
With regard to young investigators, if you look at the
distribution curve of funding and numbers of grants, as a
function of years from last degree, namely the Ph.D. degree for
most, what you will find is distribution that is skewed very
strongly towards younger investigators. In fact, the peak of
the curve is at about six to seven years after the Ph.D., and
then it trails off over time. And what we are discovering is
that about 30 percent of all new investigator grants go to
young investigators that are about five years from their Ph.D.
And that comes as a result of our paying attention to young
investigators through our CAREER grants, through many other
grants, that favor young investigators.
But I think more than anything else is the fact that we
reserve a healthy fraction of our core program to fund
unsolicited grants, and young investigators would normally
apply for unsolicited grants in order to support their
particular interests.
Mr. McNerney. So you are talking about numbers of grants or
numbers of dollars when you say that the, when you talked about
the skew?
Dr. Bement. Both. We thought of it both ways.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Bilbray from California.
Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.
Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr.
Bement and Dr. Beering for their testimony and for all the work
that they do. This is one of the most critical areas for our
country and doesn't really get the attention I think that it
deserves.
I have some, probably some further questions. I am, as you
know, a political scientist and have some further questions on
that in writing, but I want to, a couple other things I want to
ask you here.
First of all, when the Administration, it used the Academic
Competitiveness Council's assessment of the effectiveness of
federal STEM ed programs as part of its justification for its
budget decisions for NSF's Education and Human Resources
Directorate. The Academic Competitiveness Council, ACC, was
carried by Education Secretary Spellings, and the ACC found
that a number of NSF programs did not have adequate
evaluations.
So I want to ask Dr. Bement, would you agree with the
report's conclusions that NSF's education programs are not
properly evaluated?
Dr. Bement. No. I disagree and disagree quite strongly.
Evaluation is a very critical part of all of our education
programs in EHR, our Education Human Resources Directorate. And
starting in 1997, we required assessments and evaluations on
every one of our programs, and even now with all incoming
grants, we require an assessment plan as part of the grant. And
that is considered in awarding a grant.
Now, there is quite a difference of opinion on whether
random control testing is the gold standard. I think you would
recognize that in the Noyce Program where you particularly
select people for scholarships, that is not necessarily a
random process. So you violate external measures as well as
internal measures statistically in that kind of an evaluation.
Furthermore, to do a random control test you have to have
sufficient numbers that are statistically significant, and if
you are doing research, it depends on the stage of the
research. If you are doing implementation, it depends on the
stage of implementation. Now, we work pretty much at the
project and the program level, so that in many cases a well-
regulated comparison group study is a better means of
evaluation in the earlier stages of the program where changes
are occurring dramatically rather than just taking a snapshot
through a random control test to see what the status is near
the stage of scale-up.
So I think we are using the proper instruments. I think we
are getting the results that we need in order to establish that
our programs are effective, and we work very closely with the
Department of Education in scaling up our programs so that
eventually they will be proven effective through random control
testing as well.
Mr. Lipinski. There is just basically a disagreement over
the, what good testing, what good evaluation is. I am concerned
that there is a--certainly a battle going on in terms of who is
going to do our STEM education. Is it the Department of
Education----
Dr. Bement. Yeah.
Mr. Lipinski.--or the NSF. I certainly believe that the NSF
has shown, at least to me, that NSF has done a very good job of
doing this over the years.
Dr. Bement. I want to make one point clear, and that is
that, first of all, even though Secretary Spelling's chaired
the Academic Competitiveness Council, I was a very vocal member
on that council as are a number of other agency heads.
Furthermore, in the working groups that established the report
that was presented at Congress last May, those working groups
were either chaired or co-chaired by NSF staff. So we stand
behind the recommendations in that report, and you will note
that the recommendations do provide a flexibility for how to
evaluate different types of programs. And, again, I would
assert that we are in full conformance with the recommendations
of the report.
Mr. Lipinski. One other thing I wanted to raise. The
National Nanotechnology Initiative only gets a two percent
increase, which is actually below the inflation rate. Why is
the NNI getting such a low increase, actually a decrease
considering inflation?
Dr. Bement. Well, we have a way of determining whether a
program has begun to reach the flat part of a learning curve,
and that is based on the quality of proposals that we receive
in the program. And when the number of potentially
transformative ideas or the number of excellent proposals begin
to taper off, that is the time to start moderating the funding.
Now, most of the priority in the NNI Program, in this
budget is an increase in environmental health and safety
research. And the reason for that is pretty obvious, and that
is that in any new technology one has to be aware of health and
safety considerations. NSF has been a leader in this program,
in this regard for, since the beginning of the program. We have
always held apart something of the order of seven percent of
our total budget in order to look at EHS issues. And I feel the
time has come to increase that because we are seeing a lot of
variability in the research results and the test results on the
effective engineered nano-particles on human cells and other
factors.
And a lot of that variability is just lack of rigorous
characterization of the particles. And so we have to develop
better instrumentation, better protocols, and better means and
better standards. Incidentally, we are working with NIST in
trying to back up some of the standards to reduce that
variability so that we can have confidence in the results.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I see my time is up.
Chairman Baird. Thanks, Dr. Lipinski.
Dr. Bement, I applaud your defense of methodologies, and I
will recognize Ms. Johnson in one second. I would just, as
someone who used to teach statistics, to try to get folks to
understand that the very premise of a test of statistical
significance assumes random assignment and you are comparing
the actual observed difference in your two subject groups with
what might occur through random assignment, if you don't have
random assignments, the premise of a test of statistical
significance is really called into doubt. And there is a rather
slavish dependence on this I think by the Department of
Education, which in itself maybe symptomatic of some of the
problems in our education system.
Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. I have always had great admiration for the
National Science Foundation and felt that it was one of the
most accountable agencies that we had and I think at this point
one of the most important since we need this America COMPETES
Act implemented. As I think about the future of the space
program, of our high tech, all of the things that, even our air
controllers, we need so many more people than what we are
training, involved.
Would you give me an idea of how much implementation you
can do with the current budget that you are defending?
Dr. Bement. Yes. Thank you. Our concern about this issue is
more than just the level of funding and the number of programs
but how those programs align themselves and provide synergy
among the different programs.
For example, in education in order to reduce wastes and
leakage in the pipeline, we feel that a two plus two plus two
approach is necessary, and this is recognized in our Innovation
of Institutional Integration program, which is a way of
aligning different programs by focusing on a particular
strategy.
The strategy here is to focus on the last two years of high
school, the first two years of undergraduate training, and the
second two years of undergraduate training. That is the two
plus two. And of course, the first two years of undergraduate
training also brings in the community colleges as well, and
what we want to do is look at the critical junctures between
those programs and get those programs aligned so that we can
have greater success in retention but also pre-college or
preparation at the secondary school level.
So that is going to be a hallmark of our '09 initiatives in
the budget, and we feel that this can be very effective.
Ms. Johnson. In other words what you are saying is you are
adequately funded for the beginning of the implementation.
Dr. Bement. I think in the '09 budget we are happy with the
way we have aligned the budget to meet those objectives. Yes.
It will give us a good start.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Chairman Baird. Just a couple of further questions if I
might.
My understanding is that there was a significant increase
in the administration, administrative budget of NSF, and that
that was very much needed to keep up with increasing demand and
though it came under some assault in the appropriations
process, I would urge my colleagues on this committee to not
fall victim to that no matter how seductive the offset may seem
to be, because if we are going to process these programs, we
need people in the administrative offices. And I think NSF
keeps its overhead relatively low.
Would either of you like to talk about the current status
and some of the changes that have been made in that area?
Dr. Bement. Thank you. Well, as a result of the good action
we had in the '08 budget, we are going to be able to start
immediately in addressing some of the very critical staff
shortages that we currently have, especially among program
officers who are under tremendous pressure.
But the Agency Operations and Award Management budget is
more than just people and space. It deals with our pre-award
activities as well as our post-award accountability for how
programs are actually carried out. And it also includes
adequate travel so that program officers can do post-award
management.
In addition to that it also supports security and all of
our information technology programs that deal with E-
government, that deal with the essential application programs
that we use to operate, namely our FastLane process, the new
website, grants.gov, and also to try to automate the internal
operations within the foundation in order to continually
improve our productivity. And as the productivity increases, it
has been so dramatic over the years, our proposal volume has
gone up by almost a factor of three or so and yet our staff
costs have been held at only a slight increase.
Those are very worthwhile investments, and we get a lot of
return on those investments, and we are still able to keep our
overhead costs to within about five percent.
Chairman Baird. Given the complexity of the issues that
your folks have to deal with, the level of technical demand,
the complexity of the programs that are put forward, the
diversity of issues that NSF deals with, I think the, that you
should be acknowledged and the appreciation extended from this
committee.
And as I say, we will do whatever we can to try to make
sure the Administration, administrative budget stays----
Dr. Bement. It is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. I want to also compliment you. I am pleased
to see the water initiative. It just shocks me how little we
know about water. We are made of water, the planet is largely
made of water, at least the part we live near, and I believe
water will become a signature issue of this century. And the
amount of fresh drinking water available on this planet is very
small, and it is diminishing through pollution, et cetera, and
so I applaud NSF's directive in that area.
I want to raise one question, and I don't really expect an
answer here. I just want to, just for the record. First by way
of compliment, we had the great privilege of going down to
Antarctica and golly, the American people should see what a
remarkable achievement has happened down there, the science is
world class. The conditions under which it occurs is, are
extraordinarily difficult, and your people are to be absolutely
commended for the work, and I congratulate you on the opening
of the new South Pole Center. It is quite an accomplishment,
and we are proud of what our country can do in that area.
A slight negative note or question I guess it is better
put. I noticed in the budget report I don't know how much money
was spent, but some art project that consisted of putting
spheres out on the ice somewhere to simulate the heavens, I am
probably one of the few or last people in this Congress to
demagogue against humanities and art spending, but I have a
sense now having been there of the logistics of getting
equipment and people down to that part of the world. And I just
would query for future budgetary needs whether or not such
expenditures are maybe better left to the National Endowment of
the Humanities or maybe better left to people who want to
appreciate the heavens will look at the sky at night, Rocky
Mountains or something, and you will get a sense of how they
fairly much supercede the experience of a few spherical objects
placed on the ice.
So in future budgets you might want to have a look at
what----
Dr. Bement. Chairman Baird, you raise an issue I should be
concerned about, so with your permission I would like to look
into it and report back to you in writing.
[The information follows:]
Information for the Record
Dr. Bement's response to an inquiry by Chairman Baird regarding the
Antarctic Artists and Writers Program (AA&W):
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Antarctic Artists and Writers Program (AA&W)
The National Science Foundation has been responsible for managing
the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) on behalf of the Nation for
many decades now, pursuant to Presidential Memorandum 6646. As such,
NSF supports research projects supported by NSF and other federal
agencies in the field, coordinates the logistics support activities of
DOD and several other agencies, and also maintains a modest, merit-
reviewed Antarctic Artists and Writers (AA&W) Program. The goals of the
USAP are to expand fundamental knowledge of the region, to foster
research on global and regional problems of current scientific
importance, and to use the region as a platform from which to support
research and education. The AA&W Program was established in 1980 in
furtherance of these goals. It seeks to bring information about the
USAP to the American public through the published work of artists and
writers and therefore to complement the publication of scientific
papers that speak primarily to the research community.
Like all NSF programs, the AA&W Program subjects proposals to
external review by peers--in this case established writers or artists.
The review process informs NSF's decision concerning the merits of each
proposal. Unlike NSF's regular programs, the AA&W Program does not
provide funding for projects, but rather only access to our stations,
field camps, and scientists in Antarctica.
The project you asked about has resulted in a number of shows at
art galleries and has been the subject of a number of public
presentations at other forums, bringing a perspective on Antarctica to
the public that is somewhat unique. The more typical result of an AA&W
award has been the publication of books and articles in widely read
journals.
Chairman Baird. We are very proud and happy on this
committee, Dr. Ehlers and myself, to steadfastly defend
scientific projects in peer review on the Floor of the House.
It would be more difficult for me to defend that particular
project perhaps.
One question I have as we looked at the increase in
funding, one of the challenges NSF has faced and was
acknowledged in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm is the
growing disparity between availability of grants that actually
get funded to researchers and applications. And I hear this
from researchers in all branches of science. When they apply to
federal grants, their probability of success is going down.
Now, as we see an increase in funding, what happens,
because we are also seeing an increase in demand. Are we still
losing ground but losing ground at a slower rate than we used
to lose it, or are we keeping pace now with, if we were to
enact the proposed '09 budget?
Dr. Bement. Well, if we enact the '09 budget, that will
increase our success rate by about two percentage points, so it
is not a one-budget cycle issue. On the other hand, that would
greatly reduce the amount of churn in the system and churn is a
very big issue, not only for the investigators but also the
people that devote time for merit review. When they start
seeing the same proposal over and over again, they wonder
whether their time is being well spent.
There are provisions in the America COMPETES Act that will
help us in this matter, and we are also studying other ways in
which we can, near the end of a fiscal year, hold proposals
that are fundable over for funding in the succeeding fiscal
year. And anything we can do to reduce the amount of churn
would, of course, be in the right direction.
Chairman Baird. I think that is so important for Members of
this committee but for the entire Congress to understand is
that, is the impact of worthwhile projects competing against
other worthwhile projects, and when they don't get funded,
especially early career investigators, really start, they
actually give up at some point. And very promising lines of
research and promising investigators may go in other directions
that are probably damaging to our overall competitiveness.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few additional
questions.
Dr. Bement, during your testimony you mentioned several new
key investments. The Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's
Law, Adaptive Systems Technology, and the Dynamics of Water
Processes, which we just discussed a moment ago. Could you give
us more details on how, what the projects are and how the money
is----
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers.--going to be spent?
Dr. Bement. The Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law
recognizes that we are about to reach an endpoint because we
are reaching quantum limits in silicon technology. And our
estimate is that we will probably reach the end of Moore's Law
in about 20 years, maybe sooner.
So this is the time now that we should begin to look at
alternate technologies in order to get on a new law. And there
are promising technologies that will use, molecular
electronics, for example, carbon nano-tube technology, quantum
dot technology, even quantum computing.
And so what we would like to do is increase our investment
in these alternate technologies so that when the time comes, we
will be prepared to keep going, and not only to make
information systems more compact, but even more ubiquitous than
they are today.
And the second initiative, Adaptive Systems Technology. The
human body can do things better than electrical and mechanical
systems with regard to interpreting sensor signals, nerve and
motor control, and also in terms of analytical thinking, which
enables a human being to both anticipate and adapt to change.
As we learn more about the brain, the nervous system, and
the sensory systems, we feel that we can take that knowledge
and, if you will, reverse engineer it, although that is a crude
term. But, nevertheless, to embed some means of adaptation and
anticipation in engineered systems.
Let me just give you a couple of examples. We feel by using
smart agents we can develop a much more robust electric power
grid where it would be possible to anticipate upset conditions
in time to actually take corrective action, either by load
shedding or bringing on new capacity.
In our computing systems and also in our networks we could
use these adaptive technologies or anticipatory technologies to
identify intruders in the systems and to encounter intruders in
a much more natural and much more effective way.
In human prostheses we have already begun seeing
development of artificial retinas that will enable the blind to
see and also artificial cochleas that will enable the deaf to
hear. We already have amazing developments in connecting the
brain to the nervous system in order to restore muscular
activity and also nervous activity, to restore sensory
activity.
Now, we feel that these are emerging technologies that are
not only being paid attention to in Europe and also Asia where
the investments are going up, but I think we in this country
have an opportunity to establish leadership and maintain
leadership in these areas, and because of the broad range of
scientific and engineering disciplines that NSF supports
through interdisciplinary research, I think we can really make
good progress in this area.
In the case of the waters initiative, there are changing
patterns in our hydrological systems caused by ecological
changes, climate changes, and so forth. But also there are
major changes in water usage. For example, we aspire to produce
ethanol fuels from biomass. That requires an enormous amount of
water, not only for growing the crops but also for processing
the ethanol. Now, the question is over time is that
sustainable? Will the water be where the biomass is, because
the processing plants have to be reasonably close to the source
in order to make it economically feasible.
That is just one example, but there are many others. As we
look ahead on a National basis there is a great possibility
that there would be growing drought conditions in the central
part of the country. There will be more violent storms and more
water deposited in the coastal regions where it runs off and
flows into the ocean. We don't have effective catchment to hold
onto that water.
So being able to do long-term forecasting, both on a
regional basis and also on a local basis of what these changes
may amount to, is critically important. Just another example
would be the increasing flow of fresh water into the Atlantic
Ocean from the Arctic Ocean and the seas around the Arctic
Ocean just due to the melting of ice. That could lead to
disruptive climate change.
So the purpose of this initiative is to begin to put the
computational tools in place to model these interactive events
of the changes in the ecology and climate with the changes in
the hydrological systems in order to inform other federal
agencies that are engaged in this area as well, what changes
are likely to come about and what meaningful strategies there
may be for adaptation and mitigation in some of these changes.
Mr. Ehlers. Is this new money or are you repackaging
existing programs to try to achieve this?
Dr. Bement. There are ongoing efforts in each of the
directorates. This new money will link these together and form
a more interdisciplinary approach to the problem.
Mr. Ehlers. Okay. And so----
Dr. Bement. So it is not just reshuffling the cards. It is
adding another component to the overall program.
Mr. Ehlers. I will be very interested in seeing the details
on that. And I do have to add as a resident of the Great Lakes
region, that no matter what you do with water, don't take a
drop out of the Great Lakes. They have a militia prepared to
deal with that.
Dr. Bement. Maybe Michigan will be a biomass state of the
future.
Mr. Ehlers. Probably.
Mr. Bilbray. Don't worry, Congressman. We will only take
the Canadian water. How about that?
Chairman Baird. Mr. McNerney. Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Speaking of climate change, one of
the objectives of the National Science Foundation in climate
change is to provide products for decision-makers. Could you
describe what products are available that have already been
produced, what validation there is of those products, and----
Dr. Bement. Uh-huh.
Mr. McNerney.--what sort of products you see coming up in
the future?
Dr. Bement. Yes. One of the most important products that we
support is the development of sophisticated climate models that
are used to measure not only the rate of climate change but
also the cause, the forcing functions that lead to climate
change. A good bit of that work is done at the National Center
for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, but it is supported at other
centers as well, at the universities. And incidentally, that
work feeds into the International Panel for Climate Change that
got the Nobel Peace Prize. So we feel that we have a piece of
that prize. I think it is the first peace prize that the
National Science Foundation has supported.
But beyond that, the work that we do in the polar regions,
which was touched on in terms of looking at climate change over
time, looking back over the previous glacier cycles to
understand what regularity there may be in some of these
changes is critically important. So we are investing in ice
core drilling and also drilling in sediment beds and at the
ANDRILL Project, which was done jointly with Germany and New
Zealand, where we are drilling back five million years. That is
important. We are now joining with the Russians to do similar
drilling in El'gygytgyn Lake near Chokotka, on order to also go
back to that period of time.
But, you know, that just touches on a few areas of work and
climate change. Our oceanography program is also engaged. Our
neon community is looking forward to developing a national
system to sense climate change through the National Ecological
Observatory Network.
And so it is not just the competition of models. It is the
tools. It is the Arctic Observing Network that we hope to put
in place in concert with a number of other nations to measure
changes, not only in the climate but also in ocean circulation
that affects the climate. And try and understand why in
Greenland, for example, the center of the ice shield is growing
because of more precipitation, whereas it is eroding in the
costal margins just due to warming effects. And we find those
effects throughout the Arctic Ocean as well as in Antarctica.
So that is pretty much just a snapshot of some of the things
that we are doing in this area.
Mr. McNerney. That was my only question.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney. Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was glad you
brought up the artificial retina. Extraordinary breakthrough.
And you think about Star Trek and they, I forget the name of
the character who had the special glasses, and I actually had
the privilege of breaking bread with a young man who actually
has that, those glasses and that artificial retina, and I just
hope we don't become so jaded that we start not being in awe of
these breakthroughs.
But the Chairman talked about the water, and one thing we
have learned in southern California that water itself is not an
answer. You have got to have clean, cheap electricity to either
transport the water or to purify it like we are doing with
reverse osmosis.
Dr. Beering, you mentioned in your testimony a taskforce on
sustainable energy and about the meetings earlier this month
and with the various stakeholders here. I wonder if you could
bring us up to steam about if there is any preliminary
statements or information with the forthcoming report, and give
us an update on what the task force is sort of hitting on.
Dr. Beering. Well, the taskforce has had its first meeting,
and we are trying to find the dates where the group can get
together for another meeting. We heard testimony from a variety
of subject matter experts, and I am encouraged that there
really is a great deal of activity, both by the public and the
private sector, that is focusing on this entire set of issues.
It isn't just the popular notions but some very scientific and
fundamental things that are going on.
But it would be too early for me to give you any specific
answers.
Mr. Bilbray. I just had a meeting with Mary Nichols. It is
kind of funny we have switched roles. She was at EPA here, and
I was at the Air Resources Board in California. Now she is
Chairwoman at Resources and now I am over here. And one of the
big--there are some big concerns we have raised, and I don't
know if the Committee is looking at it or reviewing it, because
we talk so much about the challenges from a science and
engineering point of view, but is the Committee also looking at
the challenges of the regulatory barriers to sustainable energy
sources?
One of the biggest concerns we have in California is the
fact that we may have, as Californians tend to do, actually
outlawed the process that could be addressing our problems. Is
that even being discussed at all in this----
Dr. Beering. I am glad you brought that to my attention. We
have not discussed that yet.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, I would say sincerely that is a real
challenge.
Mr. Chairman, when I hear people talk about the concept of
sequestering carbon, I will tell you, as somebody who served on
regulatory agencies, the concept of permitting a site two miles
down under three states, I just, it boggles my mind that people
really think that is doable under the existing process. And
needing to understand that some of the challenges we are going
to have with the science is just getting government the hell
out of the way and allowing people to accomplish their goals.
And excuse the terminologies but that is going to be the
challenge.
And the other challenge that I hope you guys are looking at
is the political agenda getting in the way of scientific
agendas, and you are going to hear me screaming bloody murder
about this hell-bent run to go to corn ethanol as somehow it is
sustainable, when, in fact, I think everybody is shaking their
heads and just saying, well, everybody is jumping, so we might
as well jump. And so I hope that the Committee, again, looks at
a lot of these things and brings back a degree of sanity from
the scientific point of view for us who are forced to have to
at least consider the political game.
Dr. Beering. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Are you suggesting that the NSF change the
Presidential caucus locations?
Mr. Bilbray. Yeah. How about if we just change the primary
agenda or calendar so that certain parts of the country don't
dictate agendas for the rest of the Nation.
Chairman Baird. Your points are well taken about the merits
and the issues of regulatory concerns.
I just have one final question. I have got to leave
shortly, and I think others do as well.
Regarding the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction lines in the budget, and you don't necessarily
have to answer this here, but we observe that there is, as far
as we can tell, no horizon projects listed in that section of
the budget, and my understanding is typically one would look
ahead and say, okay. So what big things are down the road that
we might want to look toward? Is there a reason for that and--
--
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Chairman Baird.--if there are some projects you are looking
at, when might the Committee and the Congress have a sense of
what you see as on the, the next big thing so to speak?
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to
share that with you. There are horizon projects. Those are
actively supported in our directorates, and they are actively
discussed with the members of the Board. We made a conscious
decision not to publish horizon projects in our facilities
plan, primarily because it sets expectations that just because
we are considering them that they are going to be supported
until they are actually constructed.
Now, some of these projects the Board may choose to
accelerate, along with the Foundation. Some of them they may
choose to bury in a shallow grave for awhile. Some they may
decide to terminate. We need to retain that flexibility in
turning over opportunities for major facilities until such time
that we are ready to go through conceptual design review,
preliminary design review, and final design review, and
readying these projects for submission to the Congress for
funding.
Chairman Baird. I certainly respect the need for that
flexibility. I just would make sure that there is an effort to
give Congress as much heads up as----
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Chairman Baird.--especially on the budgetary front as we
look ahead to what, you know, you look at Hadron, and that is
not a cheap operation, and if we have some of those down the
road, we got to have a look at that.
Dr. Bement. Obviously it is in our best interest to do so,
and we will.
Mr. Ehlers. Just a quick one. I hate to harp on the
temperature of the room, but it did remind me of the ice
breaker question. What is the situation with the Coast Guard,
and has all that been worked out or not?
Dr. Bement. We still have a good working relationship with
the Coast Guard. We give them a forecast of our needs. They
give us their plan. We enter into negotiations on how we
actually implement the plan. That is the ongoing process, and
we will continue to use that process.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Ehlers, I should interject. It is my
hope that we can have a discussion with Ice Serve also and the
Coast Guard Committee, and we could, we have sort of two main
issues met by the Ice Breakers as you know; the Scientific
Mission but also the National Security Mission and particularly
with changes in the polar regions, especially the North Pole.
We plan to have some meetings, probably informal meetings
initially with the Coast Guard, NSF, and see how we can work
this out because I am not the funding scheme makes a whole lot
of sense.
Dr. Bement. Well, we will certainly contribute to the
science part of that discussion.
Chairman Baird. Committee Members if they had additional
information they would like to submit or our panelists,
witnesses, and with that the hearing stands adjourned with the
gratitude of the Committee. Thank you very much for your work.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Dr. Beering. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. For the Graduate Fellowship Program, for the most recent year for
which data are available and for the two preceding years, what
percentage of total applications received were from women and from
under-represented minorities, and what percentage of the awards were
made to each of those groups?
A1. The requested details follow:
Q2. Please provide a listing of the current staffing for the assistant
director, division director and deputy division director positions at
NSF showing whether the incumbent is a permanent federal employee or a
rotator.
A2. For the assistant director/office head positions, nine are
permanent federal employees and seven are IPAs. All 13 deputy director/
executive officer positions are held by permanent federal employees.
For Division Director positions, 22 are permanent federal employees, 11
are IPAs, and there are currently six vacancies. All 17 of the deputy
division director/executive officer positions are held by permanent
federal employees. There are four vacancies in this category.
Q3. Please provide an explanation of how the Research at Undergraduate
Institutions (RUI) program is managed at NSF. How is the RUI program
budget goal determined for a particular fiscal year and is there an
individual that is responsible for ensuring that the budget target is
achieved? How much flexibility do individual program officers have in
encouraging and funding RUI grants? Is the program administered
differently by the different directorates? What is the variation in
number and amount of funding for RUI awards across the directorates?
A3. RUI is fully integrated into NSF's research programs. RUI proposals
are evaluated and considered for funding in competition with all other
proposals submitted in the same areas of research, using the program's
usual merit review process.
RUI is not a stand-alone program. NSF senior management will issue
guidance in the budget process to highlight RUI and related activities.
The FY 2009 Budget Request includes $35.23 for RUI. NSF program
officers have flexibility in determining the portfolio mix of RUI
awards and research grants in their programs. An NSF-wide coordinating
committee ensures that program officers throughout all of the
directorates understand the RUI guidelines and program goals.
In addition to supporting research activities that include
undergraduates, the RUI program allows researchers at predominantly
undergraduate institutions to access state-of-the-art facilities that
might otherwise limit their success in NSF competitions. Funding is
provided for (1) individual and collaborative research projects, (2)
the purchase of shared-use research instrumentation, and (3) work with
NSF-supported investigators at other institutions--these are Research
Opportunity Awards (ROA) supplements.
All of NSF's research directorates provide researchers at
predominantly undergraduate institutions with the opportunity to
compete for RUI awards. Approximately 125-150 new RUI research project
awards and about 20-40 new RUI equipment awards have been made each
year over the past few years. BIO and MPS provide support for the
majority of these awards. The majority of the approximately 100 ROA
supplements made each year are supported by BIO. Over the past several
years, RUI funding has been approximately $35 million each year.
Q4. Please provide a summary of all international science and
engineering cooperation activities at NSF, including the relevant
budget allocations.
A4. International S&E research and education activities are funded by
all NSF directorates and research offices. International implications
are found throughout all of NSF's activities, from individual research
awards and fellowships for students to study abroad, to centers,
collaborations, joint projects, and shared networks that demonstrate
the value of partnering with the United States.
NSF's approach to international S&E is distributed and flexible,
accommodating differences across the spectrum of NSF-funded
disciplines, the diverse needs of specific communities within the
United States and with colleagues around the world. A common element,
however, is partnership with NSF's research and education constituency.
Areas and opportunities are identified through consultation and through
the proposal and merit review process. Proposals with international
activities may be submitted to any NSF research or education program
and to the special programs of NSF's Office of International Science
and Engineering (OISE).
As a result of its international portfolio encompassing projects in
all S&E disciplines, NSF effectively partners with almost every country
in the world. In fiscal year 2007, more than 4,200 NSF awards had an
international component and these awards involved cooperative
activities with 145 countries.
Whereas it is not feasible to summarize all NSF-funded projects
that have an international component in this response, NSF's
international S&E cooperative activities generally fall into three
broad categories:
Global research and education opportunities for U.S. students and early
career scientists and engineers to gain professional experience in
international teams
For example, the Research Experiences for Undergraduates
program, an NSF-wide activity, gives undergraduate students the
opportunity to engage in high-quality research, often at important
international sites. One of these sites is CERN, the European
Laboratory for Particle Physics in Switzerland, and one of the world's
premier international laboratories. Undergraduate students work with
faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to
facilities unavailable anywhere else in the world.
Global-scale research alliances, partnerships and S&E networks focused
on a complex problems or individual disciplines
For example, NSF's Division of Materials Research within the
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Science supports the
Materials World Network (MWN), a global collaborative aimed at
fostering partnerships between materials science and engineering
researchers at institutions around the globe, including institutions in
Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Through MWN, NSF and international
partner agencies jointly solicit proposals for collaborative projects.
Research is targeted at improving medical diagnosis, developing
stronger materials for the housing and transportation industries, and
more.
Support for large or distributed research facilities and infrastructure
serving numerous scientists and engineers
For example, at the ends of the world, NSF coordinates nearly
all of the U.S. scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctica
through its Office of Polar Programs. In fact, NSF was designated as
the lead federal agency for the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-
2008. During this campaign, more than 100 countries undertook projects
involving scientists, students, teachers, and the public to increase
understanding of the polar region.
Additionally, in today's highly sophisticated, technology-
driven science, many international partnerships center around major,
high-budget research facilities made possible only by combining the
resources of more than one nation. Such international infrastructure
projects play a key role in advancing S&E capacity worldwide. NSF
leadership and proactive involvement in large international research
projects helps ensure that U.S. S&E stays at the frontier. For example,
NSF's facilities budget includes construction funds for the following:
The IceCube Neutrino Observatory--the world's first
high-energy neutrino observatory--offers a powerful example of
an international, interagency research platform. Agencies in
Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have joined NSF and Department of
Energy (DOE) in providing support for IceCube, which will
search for neutrinos from deep within the ice cap under the
South Pole in Antarctica. Neutrinos are hard-to-detect
astronomical messengers that carry information from
cosmological events.
The Atacama Large Millimeter Array, currently under
construction near San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, will be the
world's most sensitive, highest resolution, millimeter
wavelength telescope. The array will make it possible to search
for planets around hundreds of nearby stars and will provide a
testing ground for theories of star birth, galaxy formation,
and the evolution of the universe. ALMA has been made possible
via an international partnership among North America, Europe,
and East Asia, in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. NSF
is the U.S. lead on this ground-breaking astronomical facility.
As part of the aforementioned IPY activities, NSF
serves as lead contributing agency for the Arctic Observing
Network (AON)--an effort to significantly advance our
observational capability in the Arctic. AON will help us
document the state of the present climate system, and the
nature and extent of climate changes occurring in the Arctic
regions. The network, organized under the direction of the U.S.
Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, involves
partnerships with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Smithsonian
Institution, National Institutes of Health, DOE, and USDA. NSF
coordinates AON activities across the U.S. government, as well
as with international collaborators, including Canada, Norway,
Sweden, Germany, and Russia.
Lastly, the Office of International Science and Engineering--the
centerpiece of NSF's international activities--integrates Foundation-
wide activities and manages a broad range of programs that support U.S.
scientists and engineers engaged in international research and
education. In FY 2009, NSF proposes a budget of $47.44 million for
OISE.
NSF's international office has implemented specific programs to
stimulate innovative international partnerships. The East Asia and
Pacific Summer Graduate Research Institutes (EAPSI), International
Research Fellowship, and Partnerships for International Research and
Education (PIRE) Programs are examples of three OISE-supported programs
that facilitate partnership across institutions and countries.
The East Asia and Pacific Summer Graduate Research Institutes
(EAPSI) Program enables U.S. graduate students to build collaborations
with scientists and engineers working in the top research facilities in
East Asia and the Pacific region. The eight-week institute programs are
held at top research institutions in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China,
Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Over 1,600 U.S. graduate
students have participated in the program since its inception in 1990.
The program fosters a U.S. S&E workforce capable of operating in a
global marketplace increasingly impacted by scientific developments in
Asia and the Pacific Region.
The International Research Fellowship Program supports
approximately three dozen U.S. postdoctoral fellows for nine to 24
months at foreign host institutions annually. The program's objective
is to introduce U.S. scientists and engineers to cutting-edge
international research opportunities in the early stages of their
careers. Fellows' research projects involve international
collaboration, the use of overseas instrumentation, and access to
unique research environments in a wide range of fields, including
biology, physics, engineering, geosciences, computer sciences, and
social and behavioral sciences.
In FY 2007, 39 fellowship recipients from 21 states were selected
to conduct research in 21 foreign countries. After completion of the
fellowship, the researchers return to jobs in academia and industry in
the United States. Past fellows have reported that their experiences
positioned them to build new collaborations with colleagues in their
host country. These collaborations have led to foreign hosts of NSF
International Research Fellows joining U.S. research teams.
The Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE)
Program is an example of a larger collaborative research activity
supported by OISE. PIRE enables U.S. institutions to establish
collaborative relationships with international groups or institutions
to conduct research dependent upon international collaboration. The
program catalyzes a cultural exchange in U.S. institutions by
establishing innovative models for international collaborative research
and education. PIRE also readies U.S. students to participate in
international research collaborations.
To date, the PIRE program has supported the work of 32 institutions
in 23 states. Research collaborations with more than 40 countries have
resulted. The U.S.-China PIRE project on electron chemistry and
catalysis was listed in the Chinese media as one of the top ten S&T
developments in China for 2006. The PIRE program supports research
projects that nurture U.S. relationships with international
counterparts.
The progress of humankind will depend increasingly on the new
knowledge of science and technology. The collaborative pursuit of new
knowledge is a powerful tool for bringing people together, and NSF
activities will continue to stimulate global collaboration.
In response to a question from Congressman Lipinski on the
rationale for providing only a 2.1 percent increase to funding for the
National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in a year in which the
directorates with the most significant role in the initiative are
getting 20 percent increases, Director Bement indicated that the
leveling of funding results from a decline in the number of meritorious
research proposals.
Q5. What have been the trends over the past three years in the numbers
of proposals received and in the proposal funding rates across the
various NNI program component areas? Are there significant differences
in proposal pressure or funding rates among the directorates supporting
research that is part of the NNI portfolio?
A5. Proposal and funding rates are available for a few solicitations
related to NNI over the past three years. These rates are comparable to
those of the Engineering Directorate which provides the majority of
funding for these solicitations. There has been a decline in proposals
submitted, in part, because of submission limitations. For the
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) program, 518
proposals were received in 2005 and 260 in 2007; funding rate was 10
percent in 2005 and 11 percent in 2007. For the Nanoscale Exploratory
Research (NER) program, 372 proposals were received in 2005 and 274 in
2007; funding rate was 22 percent in 2005 and 15 percent in 2007. In
comparison, the Engineering Directorate had an average proposal level
of 6,800 and a funding rate of 14 percent during the same three year
period.
The funding level requested for NNI is the result of the priority
setting process that takes place among the participating directorates.
Information on funding rate by Program Component Area (PCA) is not
readily available, however, because the majority of NSF's NNI funding
is provided through core programs. NSF Program Directors report that
funding rates and proposal pressure for NNI research have been
comparable to the overall levels in their respective programs over the
past three years.
NSF supports fundamental research, infrastructure, and education in
all areas of nanoscale science and engineering, excluding research
involving clinical testing. Activities are guided by long-term
objectives which may be used by industry, the community, and other
agencies. NSF supports over 3,000 active awards, 24 large centers and
trains over 10,000 students and teachers each year. The modes of
support include single investigator, multi-disciplinary team, center,
and network awards.
Q6. Is there any significant difference from fiscal years 2008 to 2009
in the allocation of NNI funds or the focus of research supported
within each of the directorates with NNI designated funding? Will NSF
readjust priorities within the NNI portfolio to address areas of
greater research promise?
A6. NSF efforts within the NNI through the NSF Nanoscale Science &
Engineering Priority Area (FY 2001-FY 2006) were directed at
establishing and fostering the growth of a newly emerging
nanotechnology community. As this community blossomed, nanotechnology
research has been transitioned and is now embedded and pervasive
throughout NSF core programs. As a result of these efforts, other
federal agencies with a more applied research mission are now in
position to partner with industry to further the basic research
knowledge gained from prior support.
NSF has an annual process of establishing its priorities on
nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) research that includes
proposals from the internal NSE Working Group, input from workshops and
meetings with the grantee communities, interagency coordination through
the National Nanotechnology Initiative--the Nanoscale Science,
Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSET) of the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC), international context, industry, and
non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As a result of this input, an
increase in focus for FY 2009 is planned in the following areas:
Research on the application of quantum mechanics and self
assembling
Research on integrated nanosystems that:
will support key applications of nanotechnology, such
as petascale computing
design-in properties by manufacturing materials from
the nanoscale
regenerate human tissue and organs from the
nanoscale; designing systems of nano-sized sensors
selectively filter harmful particles from water; and
manufacturing devices, such as solar cells, that efficiently
convert and store renewable energy
The use of nanotechnology for addressing sustainable use of
water, energy and materials
Nanoscale processes in the cell, at the intracellular level,
in the neural systems, at the interfaces between biotic and abiotic
materials
Developing the network around a planned center to study the
environmental implications of nanotechnology
Including environmental, health and safety aspects of
nanotechnology in additional core programs
For the new initiative Science and Engineering Beyond Moore's Law:
Q7. How does the initiative relate to current activities supported
under NNI and will funding now allocated to other areas within the NNI
portfolio be reallocated to this initiative?
A7. This initiative will be partially funded from the NNI funds
allocated to nanoelectonics and particularly beyond Complementary Metal
Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS), and partially new funds in MPS, ENG and
CISE for the software, cyberinfrastructure, and other related aspects.
In ENG and CISE, this activity is an extension of the existing
activities beyond-CMOS initiated in FY 2004 in collaboration with the
Semiconductor Industrial Association (SIA) and the Semiconductor
Research Corporation (SRC).
A working definition of ``nano'' suggests a range of dimensions
between about one and 100 nm, with physical behavior arising as a
consequence of the size. The bulk of the current NNI science portfolio
falls into the nanoscale region, within the context of the working
definition, and will not be subject to reclassification. The approach
by MPS will be to classify only newly funded activities as SEBML, with
any potential overlap with NNI only occurring for special cases that
might satisfy the working definition.
Q8. What are the current funding levels, by directorate, for
activities in nanoelectronics?
A8. NSF is currently investing approximately $100 million per year in
nanoelectonics and the related topics of nano-magnetics and nano-
optics. It is estimated that the Directorate for Engineering (ENG)
invests approximately $45 million, Mathematical and Physical Sciences
(MPS) approximately $45 million, and Computer Information Science &
Engineering (CISE) approximately $10 million.
Q9. Will NSF issue a request for proposals for this initiative?
A9. Currently NSF has no plans for a specific SEBML solicitation in FY
2009. NSF has been active in advertising this new potential investment
to the science and engineering community and anticipates a large volume
of unsolicited proposals.
Q10. Your office provided a summary of FY 2008 consolidated
appropriations impacts. Please expand on facilities reduction impacts,
including staff layoffs at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, the National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, and any
other NSF-supported facilities that are reduced in FY 2008.
A10.
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR)
NSF provided support for the operations and maintenance of the CESR
storage ring at Cornell University and supported operations of the CLEO
detector. Impacts of omnibus funding include these areas:
NSF support for CESR operations was scheduled for a phase-out
over fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Staff reductions were anticipated as
part of the phase-out plan. The FY 2008 Omnibus bill resulted in a $1
million reduction over FY 2008 Request in CESR operations funding,
which accelerated the phase-out, leading to the reduction of 10
positions beyond those already planned.
The CLEO detector at Cornell had been scheduled to cease
operations at the end of March, 2008. As a result of the Omnibus,
operations were terminated on February 29, one month ahead of schedule.
Additional calibration runs planned for this period would have improved
the assurance in the analysis of the data.
Large Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)
LIGO operated at $33 million in FY 2007. The FY 2008 current plan
level is $29.5 million. This funding decrease from FY 2007 to FY 2008
was planned as part of the approved construction start of AdvancedLIGO
(AdvLIGO). However, because AdvLIGO did not begin until April 2008,
LIGO continued to fully operate for six months. Although planned
`savings' were available to support these operations during this time,
due to the Omnibus, about $1 million of these funds were diverted for
other uses and not available for LIGO.
National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) and Arecibo Observatory
The FY 2008 current plan amount of $12.15 for NAIC is about level
with FY 2007 funding. However, within this total the base operations
budget for the Arecibo Observatory has been reduced in FY 2008 relative
to FY 2007, following recommendations of the AST Senior Review. This
reduction is not apparent because of the need to cover personnel
termination costs and other one-time costs required to implement the
recommendations of the Senior Review. The FY 2009 Request for NAIC is
reduced to $11.40 million ($9.6 million from the Mathematical and
Physical Sciences Directorate and $1.8 million from the Geosciences
Directorate).
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL)
The FY 2008 current plan for NHMFL is $26.5 million, or $2.5
million less than the FY 2008 Request. The FY 2009 Request increases
funding by $5 million, for a total of $31.5 million. This increase in
FY 2009 would bring support back in line with the funding schedule
outlined in the cooperative agreement, or an estimated $162.0 million
over five years.
National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)
Impacts of FY 2008 omnibus funding include:
Postponement of some infrastructure improvement projects
recommended by the recent Astronomy Senior Review and begun in FY 2007.
For example, at Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory in Chile, the
construction of a mountaintop clean-room, new detector array
controllers (electronics) for some of the older instruments, and a new
calibration system have all been postponed until funds are available in
future years. At Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona,
modernization of telescope control electronics and improvement of the
support system for the Mayall 4-m telescope's primary mirror, as well
as the acquisition of new guide cameras have been similarly delayed.
Exhaustion of NOAO's Director's reserve funds. For example,
the Director holds a small portion of the Observatory budget in
'reserve' to provide merit raises, promotion raises, peso/dollar
exchange rate adjustments, and similar one-time uses. By depleting this
fund, the Director has reduced the merit raise pool modestly and the
promotion pool significantly and has lost the small but helpful
capability he had for addressing fluctuations in the Chilean peso/
dollar exchange rate.
Three to five vacant positions will be left unfilled.
Reduction in the support of Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope
(GSMT) activities funded by the base NOAO program. This will result in
the deferral of several GSMT activities to future years. For example,
one activity deferred until FY 2009 is the identification of technical
areas (e.g., durable mirror coatings) in which design and development
work would be helpful to both current U.S. project teams.
Reduction in the support of Large Synoptic Survey Telescope
(LSST) activities funded by the base NOAO program. NOAO has both
dedicated LSST funding from NSF and allocated LSST funding in the base
program budget. In FY 2008 NOAO will direct its LSST expenses to the
dedicated LSST account rather than use the base budget account. This
reduces base budget expenditures from those anticipated in the
Congressional Request in accord with the level funding for FY 2008.
National Solar Observatory (NSO)
In FY 2008, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope design project
faces a shortfall of $700,000. While the Division of Astronomical
Sciences (AST) is working to find a solution, which may include
reductions in other programs within the division, AST will also need to
delay or suspend several project-related contracts.
National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)
Substantial impacts include: reduction of six to eight staff
positions, delayed procurements of cutting edge equipment, curtailment
of already scheduled beam time and investigator experiments, delay of
final theses for Ph.D.s candidates, and cancellation of a summer
workshop for promising undergraduates from eight collaborating
colleges.
Directorate for Geosciences
Academic Research Fleet
The FY 2008 funding level constrains resources for the fleet;
however, schedule shifts in ocean sciences construction projects funded
through the Research and Related Activities account, in particular the
delay in construction of the planned Regional Class Research Vessels,
has enabled the redirection of some funding to ship operations and will
allow NSF to support approximately 2,300 ship days at sea,
approximately the same number as 2007.
Earthscope
NSF has implemented a phased funding plan to support the operation
of Earthscope that reduces the impact of the FY 2008 appropriations on
this facility. Earthscope operations support is awarded at the end of
the year to support operations for the following year. NSF anticipates
compensating for any potential shortfall with FY 2009 funding.
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NCAR reduced its NSF-supported workforce by 30 positions. This
reduction was accomplished in several ways: terminating jobs, moving
staff to other funding sources, and not filling position vacancies.
Office of Polar Programs
OPP anticipates deferring several activities critical to ensuring
resupply of the Antarctic, leaving the USAP at risk for disruptions to
the U.S. presence in Antarctica. These include:
Delayed completion of additional fuel storage capacity at
McMurdo Station that would provide storage adequate to meet science and
operations needs for two seasons in the event of a failure of the ship-
borne resupply effort ($3.8 million);
Delayed completion of the South Pole Traverse project that
was instituted to diversify the means of delivering fuel and cargo to
the South Pole, including delivery from locations other than McMurdo,
and to reduce the cost of those deliveries. As a result, the Traverse
will operate at one third capacity until FY 2010 ($4.7 million);
Delayed commencement of plans to replace the current pier at
Palmer Station that is critical to continuity of cargo and personnel
embarkation/debarkation ($2.17 million).
Upgrades for science support at South Pole Station will also be
deferred ($4.9 million):
The planned TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System)
upgrade at South Pole Station will be deferred, delaying development of
the back-up broad bandwidth capabilities needed to transmit large data
sets that are generated by major science projects. Until this upgrade
is completed, the USAP would not be in a position to shift to TDRSS
Flight-3 (F-3) if TDRSS F-1 were to fail. In that case, communications
capabilities at the South Pole would be severely limited.
The 10m telescope has been completed and is operational.
However, shielding the telescope from ground ``noise'' will
dramatically improve the sensitivity of the telescope. Planned
construction of the shield will be deferred, reducing operational
efficiency.
Across-the-board reductions ($6.85 million) were made in budgets
for labor, maintenance, and equipment replacement. While operational
requirements will be met, there likely will be erosion in preventive
maintenance and a degradation in equipment performance. Deferring
portions of projects to replace day tanks, to provide secondary
containment for station and field fuel storage systems, for fuel piping
systems and for the vehicle refueling facility at McMurdo will increase
environmental risks and delay the expected fuel conservation benefits
of these projects.
Funding for USCG icebreaker support will be reduced ($4 million).
Attempts will be made to limit the impact of a budget reduction on the
Healy. Therefore it is likely that some maintenance currently planned
by USCG for the Polar Sea would be deferred.
The suite of software systems used to manage personnel and cargo
movements in the USAP was designed decades ago and is inefficient.
Planned replacement of these systems will be deferred ($1.0 million),
increasing risks due to supportability and security vulnerabilities.
The USAP will not be able to provide the advanced funding ($1
million) required to secure contracts for planned additional aircraft
support in the 2008/2009 season, impacting International Polar Year
projects that were scheduled to use these additional assets. For
example, the Pine Island/Thwaites Glacier sector of the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet study, and setting out instrumentation for PoleNet that would
provide ground truth for satellite-based estimates of ice mass change
will be deferred. Both of these projects are related to identifying the
contribution of ice sheets to sea level, a major unknown for climate
change models.
At Toolik Field Station in Alaska, deferral of planned upgrades
($750,000) will result in the continued use of non-code compliant
facilities, thus limiting the ability to perform winter science. The
facilities are also inefficient, contributing to high fossil fuel usage
and excessive environmental impacts. Deferred procurement of switch-
gear ($1.5 million) capable of supporting 50 percent of the (yet to be
installed) renewable energy sources at Summit Station in Greenland will
result in similar impacts and ever increasing costs. Additionally,
reducing pollution from diesel generators would greatly enhance the
quality of atmospheric observations taken at this site that inform
climate change model prediction.
Q11. Please provide a list and description of all horizon projects
under consideration as part of the current major research facilities
plan.
A11. While the 2009 Budget Request does not include so-called horizon
projects, the items listed below represent ideas and possible future
opportunities identified by the research community for development of
large-scale research infrastructure. Many of these ideas may never
mature and others not yet conceived will emerge.
Water systems: This explores environmental research on human-
stressed water systems that may lead to development of a distributed
research facility comprising interacting field sites and an integrating
cyberinfrastructure.
Coherent X-ray light source: The energy recovery linac is a
coherent x-ray light source with the potential for enabling new types
of scientific investigations that cannot be done using current x-rays
sources, and impacting many scientific disciplines such as chemistry,
biology, condensed matter and materials physics, and geology and
geophysics.
Underground science: A facility to provide research opportunities
in science and engineering in the deep underground environment. The
scientific program would provide investigations in a wide array of
subjects driven largely by physics, including nuclear physics, nuclear
and particle astrophysics, and accelerator- and non-accelerator-based
particle physics.
Giant telescope: This general purpose telescope of unprecedented
size would provide significant improvements to current technologies and
allow it to study galaxies in formation, probe proto-stellar disks, and
perhaps image planets orbiting nearby stars. It was the highest
priority ground-based recommendation in the 2001 NAS decadal survey
report ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.''
Large survey telescope: The telescope would produce the deepest,
widest-field image of the sky ever taken along with daily catalogs of
moving and transient objects. Among the principal science drivers are:
understanding the physics of dark energy and dark matter; detection of
moderate redshift supernovae; detection and cataloging of small bodies
in the solar system; studies of the distances and motions of stars in
the solar neighborhood; measurement of the kinematics and structure of
the galactic halo; and opening the time domain. Construction of this
instrument was the third-ranked major initiative in the 2001 NAS
decadal survey report ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New
Millennium.''
Next generation radio telescope: Key radio astronomy science
drivers include: extreme tests of general relativity with pulsars and
black holes; evolution of galaxies, cosmology, dark matter, and dark
energy; probing the ``Dark Ages''--the first black holes and stars;
searching for extrasolar planets and life; and the origin and evolution
of cosmic magnetism. Technology development for this possible facility
was the third-ranked moderate initiative in the 2001 NAS decadal survey
report ``Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.''
South Pole Station communications: Sophisticated experiments, not
envisioned when the recently-dedicated South Pole Station was designed
a decade ago, require increased communications capability and
reliability with a focus on moving from the current 12 hours per day
provided by aging satellites, to continuous high-bandwidth
connectivity, in order to fully realize the South Pole's research
potential and to be able to more effectively respond to medical
emergencies.
Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
Q1. Would you please provide us with more specific details on the
Teacher Initiatives within the EHR Directorate?
A1. EHR proposed a new research and development thematic priority in
the FY 2009 Request--Teacher Education in STEM: Enriching Knowledge and
Practice. It is designed to advance knowledge and practice in the
preparation of K-12 STEM teachers and to encompass the entire
continuum--from pre-service education, to induction, to continuing
professional development. Ideally, this strategic approach will subsume
many of EHR's STEM programs under a rubric that creates linkages among
the four divisions, allowing shared responsibilities and programmatic
management for the teacher education continuum. The effort will help
NSF meet the teacher preparation goals of the American Competitiveness
Initiative (ACI), which stress the criticality of replacing the
Nation's aging teacher corps, reducing attrition of STEM teachers, and
broadening participation in STEM teaching.
This integrative effort is grounded in research and practice,
builds on current knowledge while addressing critical issues and gaps
in teacher education, and expands current and prior efforts to enable
STEM teacher learning. It will address a number of objectives,
including assuring that our nation's K-12 teachers are: proficient in
STEM concepts and topics; confident in their own grasp of STEM content;
life-long learners of this content; aware of rapidly changing STEM
disciplinary content; able to guide and assess STEM learning in age-
appropriate ways; confident in the use of cyber-enabled tools; prepared
to engage an increasingly diverse student population; and supported by
STEM faculty, in collaboration with teacher education faculty and
practitioners.
All of these objectives require a research knowledge base about
STEM teacher learning that will serve as a foundation for improved
models of teacher education. A rigorous evaluation component, both at
the project level as well as program-wide, will measure outcomes in
terms of increased production of well-qualified teachers; knowledge and
dissemination of proven strategies that contribute to this production;
and evidence of a relationship between teacher education components and
improved K-12 student learning. Research questions will address new
areas of national importance concerning teacher preparation, induction,
and professional development.
Examples of specific programs within EHR that support teacher
education efforts follow:
The Robert Noyce Scholarship program (Noyce) directly
addresses the need to provide support that attracts students of
the STEM disciplines into K-12 teaching and seeks to increase
the number of K-12 teachers with strong STEM content knowledge
who teach in high-need school districts.
The Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) engage school
districts and higher education in large scale efforts to
improve K-12 STEM teaching, working primarily with in-service
teachers, but providing programs for pre-service teachers as
well.
The NSF Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K-12
Education (GK-12) engage STEM disciplinary graduate students in
K-12 classrooms to provide content support for the K-12
teachers.
Further, there are programs that have other principal objectives
but also make significant investments in teacher education,
particularly the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation
(LSAMP) program, and the Advanced Technological Education (ATE)
program. Teacher Education is also addressed through the Division of
Undergraduate Education's core program, Course, Curriculum, and
Laboratory Improvement (CCLI,) which seeks to improve STEM teaching and
learning for all undergraduates, including the many prospective
teachers who are part of the undergraduate population. Finally, there
are two programs that aim to increase understanding of effective
teaching at all levels as their core objectives: Discovery Research K-
12 (DRK-12) and Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and
Engineering (REESE).
Additional Program Details:
Noyce
The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program provides funding to
institutions of higher education to provide scholarships, stipends, and
programmatic support for undergraduate students majoring in science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology and for STEM professionals to
enter and complete teacher credentialing programs. Scholarship and
stipend recipients are required to complete two years of teaching in a
high need school district for each year of scholarship or stipend
support. Projects include partnerships with school districts,
recruitment strategies, and activities to enable the recipients to
become successful elementary or secondary math and science teachers.
For example, Noyce Scholars are typically mentored by master teachers
and college faculty while they are preparing to become teachers and as
they begin teaching in the schools.
MSP
One of the key goals of MSP partnerships is to increase the number,
quality, and diversity of mathematics and science teachers. With MSP
support, STEM faculty and their departments, often in collaboration
with colleagues in the School of Education, have developed new,
coherent and long-term courses and programs to enhance the content
knowledge of current and future teachers. Teachers-in-residence
(teachers on long-term leave and/or sabbaticals) have come on to
college campuses to broaden discussions of teaching and learning, and
to support new efforts in teacher preparation. STEM professional
learning communities, bringing together K-12 teachers and higher
education faculty, are new exemplars in professional development.
Schools have come to utilize the leadership skills of new Teacher
Leaders, and demonstrated stronger school-level achievement outcomes
when the Leaders have strongly defined roles and relationships with
classroom teachers.
The 40 Comprehensive and Targeted Partnership projects report that
over the life of their awards they will impact 137,000 teachers of
mathematics and science in the 576 school districts that are in their
partnerships. By the 2005-2006 year, 58 of their higher education
partners had undergone pre-service teacher program revision as a part
of MSP. Three hundred forty courses have been changed or are being
changed to impact the future teacher workforce; over 21,000 future
teachers are in the pre-service courses modified as a part of the MSP
effort.
Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education (GK-12 Fellows) spend
up to 15 hours a week during a full academic year working closely with
teachers in their classrooms. The fellows bring cutting edge research
and expertise in the newest instrumentation and technology into the
classrooms. According to research on professional development, this
type of embedded professional development that is both ongoing and that
supports the curriculum is most effective. The fellows also model the
life of a scientist for younger students who might not know other
scientists. The program has impacted more than 8,500 teachers and more
than half a million K-12 students. Approximately 70 percent of the K-12
settings where Graduate Fellows are placed as ``scientists in
residence'' are rural and urban schools. For this reason, GK-12 has the
greatest impact providing high-end science content knowledge to
teachers and students in some of the neediest areas of education:
inner-city schools that are usually low performing and in need of
resources and expertise; and, remote schools far removed from ready
access to supplies and specialists.
ATE and Teacher Education
Teachers are part of the technological workforce of the future.
Many future teachers will receive STEM preparation in community
colleges. Each year ATE supports teacher preparation projects that help
prepare a K-12 workforce that is skilled in teaching science and
mathematics, understands the technological workplace, and can give a
variety of approaches for solving real world, technology-related
problems using design processes and principles. For example, Normandale
Community College in Minnesota collaborates with Minnesota State
University Mankato to prepare highly qualified K-8 teachers.
Pellissippi State Technical Community College in Tennessee is
coordinating a statewide effort among seven community colleges and two
universities to develop a common core of technology, science, and
mathematics courses for future elementary school students. While
teacher preparation has been a small part of the ATE portfolio, the
program has consistently supported several such projects each year.
There is now a significant portfolio involving many institutions. The
American Association of Community Colleges plans to publish a
compendium of these projects in summer of 2008.
LSAMP Bridge To Teaching (2006 Pilot Project)
The Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program
``Bridge to Teaching (BT) Initiative'' piloted a teacher education
training program in FY 2006. The initiative funded a graduate degree
bridge activity at Arizona State University, University of Alabama-
Birmingham, and City College in New York. The initiative broadens
participation through the attraction of LSAMP baccalaureate under-
represented minority students in STEM disciplines. Additionally, this
activity seeks to remove minority students' hesitancy about entering
graduate school, and the fear of creating additional financial
indebtedness associated with initial graduate education. At the
conclusion of the 12-24 month duration each successful participant is
awarded a Master's degree and teacher certification.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The America COMPETES Act created a program called, PALS, or the
Partnership for Access to Laboratory Sciences. Will there be any grant
solicitations under this pilot program in the current fiscal year? If
not, please provide a description of
any current activities that meet the goals of PALS;
and
how you will implement the program as intended in
fiscal year 2009.
A1. There will be no grant solicitations under this pilot program in FY
2008. Before proceeding with a PALS program, it is important for NSF to
determine the most effective way to meet the intent of the PALS
provision. Two existing programs that have the capability for doing
this are the National Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics,
Education Digital Library (NSDL) and the Information Technology
Experience for Students and Teachers (ITEST).
This approach will allow NSF to address the objectives of PALS by
initiating or incorporating critical components into existing programs,
once it has been determined how to proceed most effectively.
Q2. America COMPETES also directed the National Science Foundation to
work with the National Academies to publish a Rising Above the
Gathering Storm-style report on minority participation in STEM. Will
you report back to the Committee on the status of this effort?
A2. Assistant Director Cora Marrett has already met with the Michael
Feuer, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), to discuss an arrangement in
which NAS provides expert guidance to NSF on mutually agreed upon
topics via reports and studies. The report on diversity required in the
America COMPETES Act was part of this initial discussion.
In addition, NSF supports and produces two separate biennial
reports on this topic: the report from the Committee on Equal
Opportunity in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) and a report entitled
``Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering'' (www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/about.htm). NSF reporting on
the latter topic is mandated by the Science and Engineering Equal
Opportunities Act (Public Law 96-516). The data on the web site are
updated frequently and a completely new report is issued every two
years. NSF also provides considerable support to CEOSE (The Committee
on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering), which uses this
information to advise NSF on its efforts to promote diversity and equal
opportunity in science and engineering as stipulated by the Science and
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act of 1980. A biennial report is made
to Congress. These reports make full use of NSF data.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. How does the NSF plan to implement recently authorized America
COMPETES programs in light of recent budgetary shortfalls? Can you
point to tangible evidence, such as a projected decrease in the amount
of NSF supported researchers that is a direct result of the recent
budget shortfalls?
A1. Immediately after the ACA was signed into law, a working group was
assigned to develop options and recommendations on how to implement the
provisions of the Act pertaining to NSF. The working group is
developing plans for ramping up new programs or redesigning existing
programs, processes and procedures to implement the statute.
To date, NSF has already implemented some of the Act's provisions,
such as:
Section 7036, Major Research Instrumentation: With regards to cost
sharing for the Major Research Instrumentation Program, implementation
actions included issuance of a Dear Colleague Letter to the community,
revision of the solicitation, and conducted briefings.
Section 7037(a), Limit on Proposals: For programs that require
preliminary proposals as part of the selection process, and that also
limit the number of pre-proposals that may be submitted by an
institution, NSF allows the subsequent submission of a full proposal
based on each pre-proposal that is determined to have merit. It should
be noted that this was already the Foundation's policy and only one
solicitation limited the number of full proposals that could be
submitted based on the outcome of the preliminary proposal competition.
This solicitation will be corrected when it is next issued. NSF is now
in compliance with this provision of the Act.
We are also in the early stages of implementing several other
sections, such as:
Section 7018, Meeting Critical National Science Needs: NSF will
recommend to the National Science Board (NSB) that the relevance of
critical national needs be made explicit in the NSB-approved criteria,
and that reviewers assess this in the review of proposals submitted to
the Foundation.
Section 7008, Postdoctoral Research Fellows: NSF will implement the
statute as enacted and also plans to encourage Principal Investigators
to apply this approach to mentoring graduate students.
Section 7020, Cyberinfrastructure: NSF is beginning to identify the
``scientific research requirements of broadband access,'' and to
collect recent data that describe the current status of broadband
access at relevant institutions. In fashioning a plan, we are gathering
input from academic institutions, State and local government, and
private sector organizations, as well as organizations like Educause,
Internet2 and NLR whose missions are directly relevant to support for
broadband access at colleges and universities.
Section 7026, Laboratory Science Pilot Program: NSF will utilize
its investments in cyber-enabled learning to test effective ways for
enabling authentic learning experiences for high school students. We
have several existing programs that have the capability for doing this,
such as the National STEM Digital Library and Innovative Technology
Experiences for Students and Teachers.
Section 7030 and Section 10 A, Robert NOYCE Teacher Scholarship
Program and Teaching Fellowships and Master Teaching Fellowships: NSF
will establish a pilot program that would enable it to probe the
features of the fellowship requirements, connect these features with
ones undertaken through our other fellowship programs, determine what
would be needed to implement the components of the new effort, and
establish the pathways through which such programs advance K-12 STEM
learning.
Section 7031, Encouraging Participation: This provision is an
expansion of existing efforts (e.g., in the PAESMEM Program) and
reflects NSF's strong interest in community colleges, STEM education,
and the STEM workforce. We will seek to devise highly effective
strategies for carrying out increased mentoring within the context of
our community college and workforce programs. NSF has already
negotiated the metrics that we will use through the ACC process.
Regarding the FY 2008 appropriations, NSF estimates that 1,000
fewer research grants will be awarded, impacting an estimated 3,000
senior researchers, postdoctorates, graduate students, and
undergraduates.
Q2. The FY 2009 request provides for a 16 percent increase for the
Research and Related Activities overall and about 20 percent increases
for the directorates that support research in the physical sciences and
engineering. In light of this, could you please provide specifics on
the proposed allocation for the National Nanotechnology Initiative of
only two percent growth, which is below inflation and represents an
actual decrease in level of activity? This lack of budget priority is
puzzling since the NNI is a major cross agency research initiative in
an area that is generally regarded as critical to the future
technological strength and innovative capacity of the Nation.
A2. NSF has an annual process of establishing its priorities on
nanoscale science and engineering that includes NNI Working Group
proposals with input from periodical workshops and meetings with the
communities, coordination with other agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, and consideration of the international and
industrial contexts.
NSF efforts within the NNI over the years have been directed at
establishing and fostering the growth of the nanotechnology community.
As this community blossomed, nanotechnology research has been
transitioned and is now embedded and pervasive throughout NSF core
programs. As a result of these efforts, other federal agencies with a
more applied research mission are now in position to partner with
industry to further the basic research knowledge gained from prior
support. NSF will continue to support fundamental research,
infrastructure, and education in all areas of nanoscale science.
Q3. In your opinion, how essential is long-term, stable, and
relatively predictable funding to the NSF's research activities?
A3. Long-term, stable, and relatively predictable funding enhances
NSF's ability to engage in long range planning and provide accurate
information to the scientific and engineering community on anticipated
funding levels for multi-year efforts. NSF's tasks are to keep
scientists and engineers focused on the furthest frontier, to recognize
and nurture emerging fields, to prepare the next generation of
scientific talent and leaders, to provide world-class facilities to
advance research, and to ensure that all Americans gain an
understanding of what science and technology have to offer. The
Nation's ability to innovate and compete, its strength and versatility,
depend in part on continued success in achieving these goals. NSF's
ability to meet these goals is highly dependent on adequate funding
levels that can be used as a basis for developing program plans and
priorities. Working at the leading-edge of the U.S. science and
engineering enterprise, NSF provides nearly half of the federal
investment in non-medical basic research at academic institutions and
supports science and mathematics education at all levels. The nature of
NSF's programming gives the agency an invaluable level of flexibility
and agility. NSF has proven time and again that it can respond
decisively and proactively to emerging opportunities and challenges.
Q4. The Administration cited the recently completed Academic
Competitiveness Council (ACC) assessment of the effectiveness of
Federal STEM education programs as a part of its justification for
budget decisions for NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate.
The ACC report, which was chaired by Education Secretary Spellings,
found that a number of NSF programs did not have adequate evaluations.
Would you agree with the report's conclusions that NSF's education
programs are not properly evaluated? lf so, how do you plan to address
this?
A4. The ACC recommends that ``Funding for federal STEM education
programs designed to improve STEM education outcomes should not
increase unless a plan for rigorous, independent evaluation is in
place, appropriate to the types of activities funded.'' However, this
does not mean that a specific form of evaluation is required. Program
funding relies on several factors. Importantly, evaluations should
address questions of program implementation and impact, and must be
calibrated to match the developmental changes that occur as programs
become established. In 1992, performance monitoring and evaluation of
education programs in EHR became a requirement. EHR has conducted
numerous program evaluations since that time. Since 2005, EHR has
required that every proposed project include an evaluation plan at the
time of proposal submission. Evaluation plans and appropriately
rigorous designs are developed for all EHR programs as they evolve.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. You mentioned in your testimony that the Board continues to
consider appropriate mechanisms for support of graduate students. A
report from the National Academies in the mid 1990s suggested the need
for an increase in numbers of fellowships and traineeships relative to
graduate research assistantships. The 2003 NSB report, The Science and
Engineering Workforce, indicated the Board would take no action due to
``inadequate data to compel a recommendation of a major shift in
funding mode among fellowships, research assistantships, teaching
assistantships, and traineeships. . ..''
Is the Board still gathering information on graduate student
support mechanisms and do you expect the Board's past position to be
revised in the near-term?
A1. We do not plan to revisit this position in the near-term. However,
we continue to stay informed about all NSF programs to support graduate
education and assessments of their effectiveness through the Board's
Committee on Education and Human Resources and in discussions of the
NSF budget.
Q2. What is the rationale for the FY09 budget proposal that increases
the Graduate Research Fellowships program by 32 percent while holding
the IGERT traineeship program at flat funding?
A2. The GRF and the Integrated Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship (IGERT) programs are very different with respect to purpose
and established effectiveness. The Graduate Research Fellowship program
(GRF) is NSF's traditional fellowship support program for graduate
students and has proven its effectiveness. According to the recent
Committee of Visitor's report (2003) GRF ``has been a mainstay of
technical workforce development in science, engineering, technology and
mathematics for many years. . .. The program is old enough now that
former fellowship holders can be found in many prominent places within
the public and private sectors. . .all stated goals were being met. .
.. Clearly, the students who are recipients of these awards end up
making significant contributions to the `scientific' workforce and as
`global' representatives of our scientifically trained citizenry
(Committee of Visitors Report, 2003). In FY 2009, 3,075 students would
be supported under the proposed budget.
The IGERT program was initiated in 1998. IGERT remains
experimental, with results of extensive evaluations of the program
effectiveness still under review. Both the GRF and IGERT programs have
experienced increases in this decade, but clearly the long-term, proven
effectiveness of the GRF in achieving national goals for the science
and engineering workforce merits sustaining and expanding support to
this program. The IGERT program is focused on institutional innovation
in graduate education, and grants are to institutions rather than
directly to excellent students. The IGERT program, with funding for
1,425 students under the 2009 budget, would support nearly half as many
students as would be supported under the well established GRF program.
This level of funding seems appropriate.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. How does the NSF plan to implement recently authorized America
COMPETES programs in light of recent budgetary shortfalls? Can you
point to tangible evidence, such as a projected decrease in the amount
of NSF supported researchers that is a direct result of the recent
budget shortfalls?
Q2. The FY 2009 request provides for a 16 percent increase for the
Research and Related Activities overall and about 20 percent increases
for the directorates that support research in the physical sciences and
engineering. In light of this, could you please provide specifics on
the proposed allocation for the National Nanotechnology Initiative of
only two percent growth, which is below inflation and represents an
actual decrease in level of activity? This lack of budget priority is
puzzling since the NNI is a major cross agency research initiative in
an area that is generally regarded as critical to the future
technological strength and innovative capacity of the Nation.
A1 and A2. I refer you to the responses of the National Science
Foundation Director with regard to the implementation of the America
COMPETES Act in NSF programs and the specifics of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative as implemented in NSF.
Q3. At present approximately 12 percent of graduate student support
from NSF comes from fellowships and traineeships and the remainder from
graduate research assistantships, which are tied to specific research
grants. Several years ago, a study by the National Academy of Sciences
suggested that the balance for such support should be relatively
greater for fellowships and traineeships versus assistantships in order
to give a student greater freedom in selecting an area of
specialization. Has the Board revisited this policy and is the Board
satisfied with the current balance among these support mechanisms for
graduate education?
A3. The Foundation and the Board continually review evidence of the
most advantageous approaches to support for graduate and postdoctoral
education toward achieving federal goals for the science and
engineering enterprise. In its 1996 Report of the Task Force on
Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, the Board found insufficient
evidence to justify a change in the balance in its funding modes for
graduate education at that time. Moreover, though the 1998 report of
the National Research Council, Trends in the Early Careers of Life
Scientists, urged, under Recommendation 3, that ``All federal agencies
that support life-science education and research. . .invest in training
grants and individual graduate fellowships as preferable to research
grants to support Ph.D. education,'' it acknowledged that ``There is no
clear evidence that career outcomes of persons supported by training
grants are superior to those of persons supported by research grants.''
The Board has focused on improving outcomes, rather than balance of
modes of support, in its more recent studies. Its 2003 report, The
Science and Engineering Workforce--Realizing America's Potential,
recommends encouraging institutions to ``promote a wider range of
educational options responsive to national skill needs.'' It goes on to
recommend a realistic level of financial support for graduate and
postdoctoral students (stipends on NSF fellowships and traineeships
have since been raised to a $30,000 annually). In sum, the Board has
not specifically focused on balance of support modes since the 1996
report, in favor of a broader focus on desired outcomes and the best
approaches to achieve them, which may include as a tool, as
appropriate, the modes of support for graduate education in science and
engineering.