NSF Initiatives at the Threshold of the 21st Century Remarks by Eamon Kelly, Chairman National Science Board to the American Association of Universities Council on Federal Relations Tucson, Arizona January 11, 2000 (as given) INTRODUCTION I've been asked to discuss with you today the direction for the National Science Foundation over the next ten years, a very broad and complex subject, but I will try to do it justice. This is an appropriate time for such a conversation, both because of the turn of the decade, century, and millennium, and because long-range planning issues have received much attention from the Foundation management, including the National Science Board, over the past few months. Indeed, the Foundation has recently completed its draft Strategic Plan for the next five years, implementing the full planning process required under the Government Performance and Results Act and of 1993 (GPRA). The Foundation's draft plan has been put on our webpage for public comment. We hope you will take some time to review it and offer us your thoughts. Yet, even as the proverbial ink dries--or the electronic document is uploaded to the webpage--we can feel sure that conditions over the next few years will require rethinking of the directions outlined in this new document. Indeed, in identifying its major focus areas, the NSF plan acknowledges that the areas we list today may well change over the five-year life of this latest Plan. In thinking ahead twice that far, the next ten years as you have suggested, our predictions must be only more tenuous. The advantage of speculating about the future is that no one will remember how wrong you were in ten years. However, if you are right, you can remind them and claim credit! OVERVIEW Briefly, I want to begin by considering the changes we have experienced over the last decade as a backdrop to the kinds of changes we might expect over the next. Then, I'd like to look at the context of the Federal government today. Then, I'd like to look at the context for the next five years, as described in our Strategic Plan. Finally, I'd like to speculate on the changes I would like to see implemented in the next decade for NSF and Federal science in general. THE LAST DECADE Let us first recall that the decade of the '90's was ushered in by tearing down the Berlin Wall, and has continued with a process of democratization in Eastern Europe and the implementation of plans for a unified European Community. The fall of the Soviet Union has meant the end of the Cold War. Although a civilian research agency, NSF's growth as a research agency over its history was primarily spurred by the needs of the Cold War era. The Asian Tigers have had an economic setback, and U.S. industry went through a restructuring that increased its international competitiveness. The revolution in communication and information, embodied in the Internet, picked up steam. In government, like industry, efforts were implemented to increase efficiency and to be more responsive to the public, including GPRA and the National Performance Review. The Stock Market soared, and analysts agreed that we were experiencing a new, unpredictable, era of economic growth led by knowledge based industries. In spite of substantial change, I would argue that the NSF mission, established by the NSF Act in 1950, To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the National defense; and for other purposes, is an even more vital Federal responsibility today. We can feel comfortable that over the next decade the importance of this mission is more likely to increase than decline, no matter what changes are in store. Today, however, national energies are focused on the civilian economy rather than on national security. Although cutting edge research and an innovative science and engineering workforce continue to be vital--indeed increasingly vital-- to national security, the economy and quality of life issues have taken precedence as justifications for Federal support to science and engineering research and education. Intellectual capital, as a driver of economic growth worldwide, in the fight against human disease and disability, and increasingly in the management of our natural environment have become the most powerful arguments for public support to science and engineering. THE FEDERAL CONTEXT Nonetheless, we must keep in mind the warning of Edmund Burke in 1791 that "You can never plan the future by the past", which is certainly even more true today than in his time. Within less than a year we will have elected a new President and can look forward to changes associated with a new Administration. In fact, the role of the Federal government in advancing science and engineering research and education--the mission of the National Science Foundation--has moved increasingly to the center of political discussion within the last decade, and it is likely to be a focus for policy makers regardless of who occupies the White House. The increased interest in the Federal role in science and engineering research and education reflects widespread public recognition of its benefits to the economy and toward a longer and better life. The industry think tank, the Council on Competitiveness noted recently: "Investment in discovery research creates the seed corn for future innovation. Government at all levels is the mainstay of the nation's investment in science and engineering research...." The Council concluded that increased public investment in fundamental research and education is a vital need. Institutions of research and higher education--such as yours--have become one of the primary drivers of our economy. Commercial and medical breakthroughs in understanding and product development - from terascale computing systems to genomics to laser surgery - are rooted in the support of past fundamental research investments, often linked to publicly funded research performed by universities. One only has to look at the four high tech companies in the top 10 of the Fortune 500. None of these four was even in the Fortune 500 a decade ago. Many grew from ideas nurtured by American universities. As Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan recently noted: " . . . the research facilities of our universities are envied throughout the world . . . The payoffs in terms of the flow of expertise, new products, and start-up companies, have been impressive." But universal acclaim for the benefits we have realized from Federally supported research has not yet generated commensurate public investment. A recent, December 31, article in the Wall Street Journal reviews major administration initiatives for the 2001 budget and notes that "total U.S. R&D could rise to a record share of the economy next year, surpassing the 1964 high mark of 2.87%." The not-so-good-news is that long-term R&D investments - sponsored mainly by the Federal government - have been steadily losing ground to short-term investments, sponsored mainly by private industry. Even in the face of the demonstrably high return on basic research investment - conservatively 30 percent - the U.S. public and private sectors are underinvesting in research. A $17 billion investment in fundamental research to drive innovation in an $8 and a half trillion economy indicates a mismatch between rhetoric and real commitment to the future. Concern in both Congress and the Administration to grapple with the proper role for our national government in research and education has been evident during this Administration and in the current Congress. Both the House and Senate have undertaken efforts to address the needs for Federal support of R&D. In the House of Representatives a major effort was undertaken to articulate a new National Science Policy in its report, Unlocking Our Future, also known as the "Ehlers report" after its principal author, Vernon Ehlers. We have seen the White House explore the Government-University Partnership in research and education, in response to the Presidential Review Directive on that subject, released last year as Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21st Century. This report reaffirms the importance of the Government/University partnership. In sum, there has emerged a consensus on the critical Federal role in fundamental research, a reaffirmation of the essential contributions of the Federal/University partnership, and an articulation of the need of a balanced strategy for support to both life and physical sciences and engineering. The influence of these themes are evident in the White House strategy for the 2001 budget and the Senate's Federal Research Investment Act urging a doubling of scientific research support over the next 11 years. Yet, in spite of a budget surplus, pressures due to the expected explosion in entitlement spending as the baby boomers retire continue to make additional funding for science and engineering research and education problematic. We cannot expect that public confidence in science and technology alone is sufficient to assure a reasonable level of Federal investment in fundamental research and science and engineering education. It is necessary for us, the members of the science and engineering community, not only to communicate the message but to do so continuously and to strike the right tone. For success in the future we will need to not only react to inadequate budgets for R&D, but rather we must develop a coherent message and proactive strategy to effectively argue the needs for Federal support across the frontiers of science and engineering. NSF PLAN Our recently released Strategic Plan describes the priorities for NSF investment, identifying three "transcendent" areas of emerging opportunity. These priorities enable research and education across the broad frontier of science and engineering. These priorities are, at least for the next few years: Information Technology, the Environment, and the Twenty-first Century Workforce. I'd like to spend a little time on each of these, and additionally on one critical emerging area, Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Information Technology Advances and convergence in computing and communications theory and practice made information technologies dominant in the second half of the 20th century, with the promise of even greater leaps in the years ahead. Analysts estimate that the information technology industry already constitutes $700 billion of the total U.S. economy, and has generated about a third of all U.S. economic growth over the past decade. Nonetheless, in its 1999 interim report, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) expressed alarm that U.S. leadership in this area could be undercut in the near future unless the long-term Federal investment in fundamental research is greatly increased. In response, NSF and several other science agencies (Defense, Energy, NASA, National Institutes of Health, and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), working under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), developed a long-term research plan with NSF serving as the lead agency. The initiative has three thrusts: (1) fundamental information technology research; (2) advanced computing for science, engineering, and the nation as a whole; and (3) research on the economic and social impact of the information revolution. NSF has strong programs in each of these three areas. The Environment Activities in research and education concerning the Environment comprise an NSF-wide coordinated activity in environmental science, engineering and education. Research supported under this rubric will cover three overlapping and highly interactive areas within NSF -- Global and Environmental Change, Biodiversity and Ecosystems Dynamics, and Environment and the Human Dimension. Core research efforts will be driven by the understanding that-as in the story of blindfolded men trying to describe an elephant--knowledge of individual components of environmental systems provides only limited information about the behavior of the whole system. New collaborations of scientists from a broad spectrum of fields-in biology, physics, chemistry, geology, hydrology, statistics, engineering, computation, and social sciences-are needed. Research in this area is enabled by powerful new emerging technologies -- including genome sequencing, nanotechnology, new computational algorithms and mathematical methods, sensors and monitoring devices. These tools have opened possibilities for great leaps in our understanding of ecosystem complexity and dynamics. The National Science Board has just completed and has circulated for comment its report on the NSF role in environmental research, education and assessment. The report argues for additional funding for a range of unmet needs in NSF research and education programs. It also calls for coordinated interagency efforts to address unmet needs beyond the scope of NSF's mission. To address these needs, NSF's annual budget must be incremented over the next five years to reach an estimated $1.6 billion, approximately tripling the current annual budget in this area. The Twenty-first Century Workforce U.S. leadership in the concept-based, innovation-led global economy of the next century will depend on success in building and sustaining a competent and diverse scientific, mathematics, engineering, and technology workforce--what we call the SMET workforce. SMET education reaches from pre-kindergarten through elementary and secondary to undergraduate, graduate, and continuing professional education. It involves collaboration not only among Federal agencies, but also among the vast population of stakeholders in science, engineering, and technology education at the state, regional, and local levels. The targets of NSF's investments in human resources include: * Human learning--how we learn; * Quality of the SMET educational enterprise, including precollege teacher performance and student achievement; * A wide involvement by members of our Nation in a globally engaged SMET enterprise. Among NSF's educational priorities is investment in a National digital library and related activities-as a flexible tool to for enhancing education at all levels. In collaboration with the Department of Education, NSF will continue innovative efforts to place college and graduate students in K-12 classrooms. Graduate students will be expected to assist teachers with content, while gaining exposure to the working environment for teaching in the precollege system. The National Science Board has recently released its report on precollege education, Preparing Our Children. The Board affirms that scientists and engineers, and especially our colleges and universities, are important stakeholders in the precollege system and critical to raising the quality of precollege education. Direct participation by the universities and by scientists is needed in the form of hands-on mentoring of teachers and assistance in the classroom, and also in in-service training and enhancing the curriculum for primary and secondary teachers. NSF hopes to work with you in creating a seamless continuum between primary, secondary, and college-levels in SMET education. Nanoscale Science and Engineering NSF is continually alert to emerging areas of opportunity from the community. At present the Agency is focusing on the NSF role in Nanoscale Science and Engineering. Nanoscale science and engineering refers to the world as it works at the nanometer scale-that is, one billionth of a meter to several hundred billionths of a meter. Nanoscience and nanotechnology promise to yield a dominant technology of the 21st century. Advances in nano-science and technology underpin innovation in critical areas-from information and medicine to manufacturing and the environment. Objectives of NSF's program include: (1) discovery of new phenomena, processes and tools; (2) enhanced methods for the synthesis and processing of nanometer-scale building blocks for materials and system components; (3) appropriate new device concepts and system architecture for nanoscale engineering; and (4) education of a new generation of experts prepared to accelerate the progress of nanotechnology. IN THE LONGER TERM-THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND BEYOND NSF is also exploring a range of long-term issues for which an appropriate strategy is not yet clear. Frequently study and development of long-term strategy for NSF on specific issues is taken up as a special focus for the National Science Board through special task forces and committees. Such policy discussions now in process include: * The Task Force on International S&E Issues. It is charged with reviewing science and technology in the international context in both highly developed and developing countries, and the NSF role in international science and engineering research and education; * Priority setting in Federal allocations for research, under the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues. The committee is charged to lead a study to develop an intellectually well founded and broadly accepted methodology for setting priorities across fields of science and engineering, for the purpose of providing guidelines and clear direction on setting priorities within the $70 billion Federal research budget. * The Task Force on the Environment. While I have already mentioned this, I should note that the Board's Interim Report, Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century, resulting from the Task Force efforts, has been reviewed favorably by PCAST, NSTC and OSTP, circulated widely for comment and will be taken up for final Board approval in February. * The Committee on Communication and Outreach, established to advise the Board on the role that the National Science Foundation should play in generating public awareness of science and of the NSF mission to promote discovery and the development of the Nation's human resource base. * The future of the social and behavioral sciences in the NSF portfolio is a critical long term policy issue for the Board and Foundation that will be taken up for consideration within the next year. Human Resources Issues of human resources for science and technology are central to NSF's mission. The Education and Human Resources Committee of the National Science Board is a standing committee that reviews and advises on strategic issues involving the scientific, engineering, and technical workforce; science and engineering education and training; and programs for minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. In the next few years, the committee has been asked to address the following policy issues in higher education: * The appropriate breadth and focus in education and training responsive to the growing diversity of career and employment opportunities; * The development of reward systems that support mentoring and outreach; * The enhancement of collaboration among disciplines as well as research and non-research institutions; and * Improved data to identify current and emerging national needs for the science and engineering workforce. And in areas of specific concern: * Promoting policies that encourage the attraction and retention to degree completion of talented students from underrepresented groups, and how this relates to our heavy reliance on foreign students and professionals; as well as our heavy reliance on SATs and GREs despite their de minimus predictive value * Encouraging the involvement of scientists and engineers in the improvement of quality of K-12 education through their employing institutions and professional associations; and * Employing information technology to promote teaching and learning at all ages, and to build bridges between formal and informal science learning. Precollege education in mathematics and science Over the last few years, the Board has been focusing especially on precollege science and mathematics education in the wake of the findings of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Following careful examination of the data and after several hearings, we are convinced that NSF and its partners can and must develop national strategies to improve K-12 teaching and learning in math and science. Given your command of content and pedagogy, you as institutions of the science and engineering research and education communities have not just an opportunity but an obligation to contribute to improving local schools, teaching, and learning. In our recently released report on precollege education in mathematics and science, Preparing our Children, the Board points out what works in teaching and learning of mathematics and science. The report analyzes the factors, especially the role of well-trained teachers and of rigorous and engaging instructional materials, that contribute to world-class student achievement, and recommends strategies for national action. Data on systemic reform projects for precollege education sponsored by NSF and its partners at the state and local levels and others have shown promising results. Successful models--that show dramatic, measurable improvements in student performance in science and mathematics on assessment tests--include Detroit, El Paso, Memphis, Chicago, and other cities. These encouraging results suggest we are beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel of public education. An important thrust for the future will be to extract successful strategies for dissemination and wider application. NSF AND ITS PARTNERS IN S&T Among the Federal agencies, NSF's mission is unique--to strengthen the overall health of U.S. science and engineering across a broad and expanding frontier. The escalating complexity of science and engineering is moving education and research toward the collaborative mode with greater focus on intellectual integration. In teaching, as I mentioned before, colloboration is essential for the future. This is particularly true with respect to our partnerships with you in the academic sector in undergraduate curriculum reform for mathematics and science teachers in schools of education. In research, cutting-edge tools for research in information and communications technology, genomic mapping, measuring and monitoring tools and databases, require expanded collaboration and shared costs among agencies, across fields of science, institutions, sectors and even national governments. More collaborative organizational strategies for both enabling and enhancing the benefits of cutting edge science and engineering research and education open the doors for some of the most exciting opportunities over the next decade. The Federal partnership with universities remains vital to our science and technology enterprise and is central to NSF's mission. It will continue to be NSF's core and most indispensable relationship for achieving its mission for the foreseeable future. But in cutting edge research and education, business is never "as usual." In the future, even the immediate future, academic science and engineering at all levels must experience significant change. To support the contributions made by our science and engineering communities, especially including our research universities, NSF's portfolio must remain large and diverse, addressing many fields, activities, and employing a range of organizational strategies. These strategies include single investigator grants, small groups of investigators, large multi-purpose research centers, and large interorganizational, intersectoral and international collaborations. NSF has a special responsibility to remain alert to the input and contributions of the "grass roots" of the research community. Over one half of NSF's research budget supports unsolicited, investigator-initiated research proposals. Investigator-initiated research projects are often the first hints of future broad-based initiatives. But NSF is deeply concerned about the inadequacy and inefficiency of support to the research community. We have targeted in our Strategic Plan an increase in the size of grants by at least 10% per year, from the current annualized mean of $75K to a target goal of $150K. NSF has further proposed to increase the duration of grants from a minimum of three years to four years. Improvements in the level of funding and length of the average grant will facilitate collaborations and provide added stability to long-term projects and to graduate students for their thesis research. Reaching the proposed increases in award size and duration will require significant additional resources for NSF. Like cutting edge science and engineering, which has come to rely more on collaborations across fields of science and institutions, NSF increasingly relies on collaboration with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and even international organizations in larger scientific and technological initiatives. In some cases NSF contributions are small in terms of funding but provide the assurance of excellence through the merit review system, lending credibility to the joint enterprise. These collaborations like all interdisciplinary work can be very difficult administratively, and on a human level as well. Nonetheless, we can expect that NSF will be called upon more frequently in the coming decade to work with others on large, complex projects, with the purposes of sharing costs, encouraging wider dissemination of ideas, including the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, and cross-fertilization among diverse areas of research. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I've sketched for you the important changes that have shaped the NSF environment over the last decade and which will certainly remain part of the backdrop for the next-the end of the Cold War, the rapid shrinking of our world through advances in communications and information technology, the changes in the world economy and the political structure of the globe. We have seen the linkage between fundamental research discoveries and improvements in our quality of life strengthen and gain widespread public recognition, and we have at the same time seen growth in total U.S. R&D funding with a shift toward short term and applied research as industry investment has grown. At NSF we have recognized the need for greater investment in fundamental research and education on the Environment, in Information Technology, Education writ large, and Nanoscience. For the long term we are developing policy guidance in areas of International Science and Engineering, Priority Setting in the Federal Research Budget, Communication and Outreach on science and engineering, and Human Resources at all levels of the education system, the workforce, and the general public. At the same time, we need to move from an educational paradigm focused on preparation of an elite scientific workforce to a paradigm that reflects the needs of a diverse population and demands broad public familiarity with scientific and mathematical concepts. Science and technology have moved to the center stage in our economy and society. Federal support is, and will continue to be, critical in both fundamental research and advanced education in science and engineering. Your institutions, like NSF, are central players in Federally supported science and engineering research and education and will continue to be our most essential partners in the coming decade. I personally look forward to working with you to sustain our national and Federal commitment to a more prosperous and equitable future through increased public support for fundamental science and engineering research and education. Yet the next 10 years will see acceleration in the competition for the discretionary Federal budget. Many activities worthy of funding will fail to make a convincing argument for priority over other claimants. It will be critical that the S&E community speaks with one voice-and a loud one-in support of the Federal budget for science. Stepping outside of my role as spokesperson for NSF, I would like to add some personal thoughts on what I would like to see in the next decade. As a citizen and member of the science and engineering community I feel strongly that a mere doubling of the Federal budget for science in the next 11 years, as proposed by the Senate, is not sufficient to meet the increasing demand for new knowledge and personnel trained at the cutting edge of science and technology. Doubling the size of the average NSF grant to $150,000 in the next five years will be a help. It will not be enough. The average grant size today for NIH is $250,000. This would not be an unreasonable target, but it would double the current NSF budget. I would also want to see a substantially better success rate for our applicants, rather than the 30 percent success rate they face today, as well as an increase in the average length of award. I do not feel it is unrealistic to ask that the NSF budget rise to between $16 and $20 billion, roughly doubling every five years. Another priority is an expanded and enhanced program in the social sciences. The questions addressed by these sciences are some of the most important for the quality of life of our citizens. Nonetheless, when I look the breakout of Federal civilian R&D investments, with the focus in NASA and NIH, I must conclude that our citizens want most for our government to be able to visit other planets, and they want to live long enough to see it happen! We need to rethink these priorities. In the next decade, I would hope to see a more rational, coherent, coordinated and balanced approach not only to the NSF budget, but also to the Federal budget for science and engineering research and education in general. And I hope to see our communities mobilize to support science, regardless of whether their own priorities are emphasized. With a unified, vocal and SUSTAINED support from the science and engineering communities, even where they might not be the direct beneficiaries, we can prevail in the competition for Federal funding to achieve the level that would be in the best interests of science and the Nation. I thank you for allowing me to look ahead to the future for NSF and Federally supported science in the next decade. I look forward to hearing your questions and thoughts. Thank you. 11