Title : NSF9168--Adapting to the Future-- Report of the BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century--Executive Summary Type : Report NSF Org : BBS Date : November 2, 1991 File : nsf9168 ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Adapting to the Future Report of the BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences National Science Foundation This report was developed by an external group of people for the purpose of providing recommendations to BBS that will improve its organizational structure and enhance the effectiveness of that structure in responding to future scientific opportunities and challenges. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this Executive Summary of the BBS Task Force report are those of the external group of participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf--) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment to communicate with the Division of Personnel and Management about NSF programs, employment, or general information. The TDD phone number is (202) 357-7492. IFS Escape-Time Renderings, copyrighted 1990 Gordon Lescinsky, Electronic Visualization Laboratory, University of Illinois at Chicago. Cover fractal courtesy of John C. Hart, University of Illinois at Chicago--EECS. Adapting to the Future Report of the BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20550 BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century PAUL MAGEE (Chair), College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul JEANNE ALTMANN, Alee Laboratory, University of Chicago, Illinois STEPHEN R. ANDERSON, Cognitive Science Center, John Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland ALBERT BENNETT, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine RICHARD BERK, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles NANCY CANTOR, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ROBERT GOODMAN, Madison, Wisconsin MICHAEL GREENBERG, Whitney Marine Laboratory, University of Florida, St. Augustine JOAN HUBER, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus JULIUS JACKSON, Department of Microbiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing ANNE O. KRUEGER, Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina JUDY L. MEYER, Zoology Department, University of Georgia, Athens HAROLD MOROWITZ, Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia RISA PALM, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Colorado, Boulder CHARLES R. PLOTT, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena PETER A. ROGERSON, Department of Geography, State University of New York at Buffalo CLARENCE RYAN, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Washington State University, Pullman BARBARA SCHAAL, Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri PETER VITOUSEK, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California MARVALEE WAKE, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley STAFF MARY E. CLUTTER, Assistant Director, Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences W. FRANKLIN HARRIS, III, Executive Officer, Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences SONYA E. MALLINOFF, Budget and Operations Officer, Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences COURTLAND S. LEWIS, Writer/Editor ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Foreword The Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences (BBS) Directorate was established in 1976, the time of the last major reorganization of NSF, when disciplinary research divisions became directorates. As the name implies, BBS includes a broad spectrum of disciplines. The past 15 years have been a period of intense activity throughout these fields of science resulting in remarkable progress. Scientific advances have been driven by numerous factors, including the powerful techniques of molecular biology and the introduction of computers across all fields of science, as well as societal problems such as global change (both environmental and social). In such a dynamic environment, static organizations can potentially lose their effectiveness over time. It was with this in mind--the need for a critical examination of BBS's continuing ability to accomplish its mission--that the BBS Task Force "Looking to the 21st Century" was established. Following recommendations from the BBS Advisory Committee and directorate management, in June 1990 I established a Task Force consisting of 20 external representatives of the BBS science communities. Members were selected not only because of their affinity with BBS disciplines, but also because of their reputation for being able to think beyond their narrow disciplines to the broader issues and opportunities facing science today and into the 21st century. A more complete representation of the views of all the disciplines encompassed by BBS was sought by inviting professional societies to provide written or oral testimony. The Task Force was charged with: (1) evaluating the organizational structure of the BBS Directorate in terms of its effectiveness for meeting the current and future needs of the areas of science within the purview of the Directorate; (2) recommending options for change in the organizational structure that would maximize the ability of NSF to respond to new opportunities and challenges in these areas of science over the next decade; and (3) identifying ways to ensure the optimal development of these sciences through improvements in the scientific infrastructure, in NSF proposal review and program management, in the selection of scientific agenda and initiatives, and other non-structural changes. The first meeting of the Task Force was held in September 1990, at which time a structure for its future work was developed. A public hearing was held in late November 1990. Of the more than 100 professional and scientific organizations invited to participate, 55 organizations ultimately testified at the hearings. Many other organizations, as well as a few individuals, prepared written testimony for the record. The response from the community was enthusiastic and appreciative of the opportunity to be involved in this important process, one with the potential for significant impact on their disciplines in this decade and into the next century. The Task Force met four times. Their final recommendations are extensive, thoughtful, and cover all disciplines within BBS. They range from programmatic recommendations requiring development of new programs or initiatives to very broad recommendations for organizational change. We are indebted to the Task Force and its chair, Dr. Paul Magee, for their report. They have spent considerable time debating the future of science and its needs and have developed a thoughtful agenda for us to pursue as we approach the next century. MARY E. CLUTTER Assistant Director Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Preface As we approach the 21st century, no field of science has felt the accelerating pace of scientific advance more acutely than those presently encompassed by the Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences (BBS) Directorate of the National Science Foundation. From such successes as the discoveries in genetics which began around mid-century to the successful application in the postwar period of fiscal and monetary theory to minimize economic cycles, biology and the social, economic, and psychological sciences (SEPS) have grown in complexity and sophistication until they constitute a major part of the intellectual endeavor of today's science. In a practical sense, these sciences play an important role in formulating the solutions to virtually every major problem facing humankind. The future of these disciplines therefore promises to be even more exciting than their past and their present. It was in the context of this remarkable expansion of knowledge that the "BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century" met in the fall of 1990. We were a group of 12 biologists and 8 scientists from the SEPS convened to advise the Directorate on how best to position itself for the anticipated changes and needs of the next 20 years. For me, as I suspect was true for the rest of the group as well, the Task Force was a remarkable learning experience. As we discovered the excitement and the problems of disciplines far from our own, the enormous diversity of the component areas of BBS was brought home to us. Two days of testimony by 55 scientific societies with a perceived stake in the organization of the Directorate only reinforced that impression. In the end, there was a strong consensus (although not a unanimous one) on the Task Force that the different orientations and needs in the two clusters of disciplines, as well as the exciting potential in both, constituted a strong intellectual and practical argument for creating two new Directorates, one for biology and one for SEPS. Although the question of whether BBS ought to be reorganized into two new Directorates was a major item on the agenda for the first two meetings of the Task Force, issues of scientific infrastructure, human resources, and ways to facilitate scientific change also were addressed at length. These discussions led to several creative and innovative recommendations which have the potential to provide strong reinforcement to the scientific endeavor in all the areas included in the present BBS Directorate. By far the most exciting part of our deliberations were the meetings during which we speculated on the future directions of research in our disciplines. It was remarkable how convergent the two groups of scientists, biologists and SEPS, were on the future trends in their areas. Striking similarities in themes were readily apparent, not only among the disciplines within each group, but also between the two groups. If a predominating theme emerged, it was that both sets of disciplines are ready to handle levels of complexity that have been unattainable heretofore. As a molecular geneticist, I was particularly excited to imagine the applications of that discipline in areas as different from it as organismal biology and ecology--in effect reversing the trend toward reductionism which has characterized biology over the last 50 years. From these discussions emerged ideas for facilitating collaborations among diverse disciplinary groups in order to encourage integration of their approaches and to promote interdisciplinary interactions among scientists early in their careers, at the graduate and postdoctoral level. On the whole, the Task Force study was a stimulating and exciting, albeit demanding, experience. Our job would have been impossible to perform without the assistance of a number of people, chief among them NSF Assistant Director Mary Clutter, the able head of BBS, who conceived the idea of this Task Force, got us started, and provided us with all sorts of essential information about the Directorate, the Foundation, and the scientific communities they serve. I would also like to thank BBS Executive Officer Frank Harris, as well as Budget Officer Sonya Mallinoff and the rest of the wonderful staff of BBS. Should I be inclined to wear a hat, I would doff it to writer Courtland Lewis, who skillfully assembled a huge body of material into a coherent final report and never (well, hardly ever) lost his good humor. Finally, I would like to thank the Task Force members, who provided an impressive store of exciting ideas, who worked long and hard both at meetings and after they went home, and who managed to form a cohesive unit despite their enormously varied scientific and institutional backgrounds. It's always fun to work with a group of bright and thoughtful people, and in this case it was great fun indeed. P. T. "PETE" MAGEE, Chair BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Divergence of the Disciplines Currently in BBS Fostering Interdisciplinary Research New Initiatives Mechanisms to Facilitate Collaborative Research Suggestions for Improving Funding Policies and Procedures Improving Educational Opportunities and the Supply of Human Resources Strengthening and Promoting NSF's Unique Role Major Themes in Future Research The contents of the full report of the Task Force are listed below PART I: BACKGROUND 1. THE CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE 2. SWEEPING CHANGE IN THE BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL ECONOMIC, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES The Biological Sciences Research Scope and Directions Interdisciplinary Issues in Biology The Social, Economic, and Psychological Sciences Research Scope and Directions Interdisciplinary Issues in the Social, Economic, and Psychological Sciences PART II: ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 3. DIVERGENCE OF THE DISCIPLINES CURRENTLY IN BBS The Rationale for Two Directorates Arguments in Favor of the Change Issues Raised by the Separation Recommendations Suggested Criteria for Determining the Placement of "Bridge" Disciplines Organizational Issues in Biology Recommendations 4. ORGANIZATION TO FACILITATE SCIENTIFIC CHANGE Issues and Discussion Recommendations 5. INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES Human Resources and Education Instrumentation and Facilities Methods and Measurement Recommendations Recommendations for Human Resource Development Recommendations in Other Infrastructure Areas PART III: LONGER-TERM ISSUES 6. NSF IN THE 21st CENTURY: PURSUING THE FUNDAMENTAL MISSION Expanding Opportunities, Constricted Resources Advancing NSF's Unique Role Increasing the Visibility and Priority of Science Mechanisms for Support of Science "Mission-motivated" Research: Sponsoring New Initiatives Centers vs. Individual Investigator Research Interactions With Industry Global Science Cost Containment Priorities in Research Long and Broad Sunrise and Sunset Data Bases 7. A GLIMPSE OF SCIENCE FUTURE Future Science in Biology Structural Biology Integrative Roles of Chemical Signaling Systems Biomechanics Ecology Behavioral Biology Evolution as Experimental Science Computational Biology Integrative Biology Major Themes Future Science in SEPS "Stop-and-Go Rules" for Behavior Exploration of Political Decision Processes Design of New Economic Organizations Cognitive Organization Across Modalities and Species Anthropology and High Technology Coupling of Social, Biological, and Physical Processes Global Perspectives in Geography Major Themes How To Promote Development of Future Science APPENDIX A: TASK FORCE MEETINGS APPENDIX B: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA AND WITNESSES ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Background The past 15 years have seen sweeping changes throughout the biological, behavioral, and social sciences. These changes--from genetic engineering to major advances in our understanding of human behavior and mental function, from the use of satellites to provide new data for geographers to the application of game theory to help explain major political events, to an understanding of the loss of biological species in an ever more fragile and endangered natural environment--have been driven by new scientific techniques, new knowledge, and new challenges facing scientists. The most basic scientific principles have been refined and extended. The advent of powerful and affordable computers has changed the way that scientists pursue their research, store and analyze data, and conceptualize the knowledge spheres in which they work. Interdisciplinary research has become increasingly prevalent as many of the boundaries between traditional disciplines have softened or dissolved, and as new disciplines have emerged. The National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences (BBS) has been in the forefront of these changes, funding basic research at universities across the range of fields within its purview. These fields encompass a broad spectrum of disciplines, including (to name just some of the major ones): genetics biochemistry molecular biology cell biology organismal biology plant biology ecology evolutionary biology systematic biology neurobiology behavioral biology conservation biology biotechnology anthropology geography political science sociology financial economics economic development econometrics developmental psychology social psychology physiological psychology cognitive science artificial intelligence linguistics It is an enormous scope of activity. Total Ph.D. production in these fields exceeds that of all other fields of science and engineering combined. The BBS Directorate has endeavored to both lead and follow changes across this spectrum, structuring its programs to accommodate emerging needs while being alert to future scientific opportunities. To that end, the Directorate has engaged excellent professional staff and enlisted the aid of literally thousands of scientists to help in directing current research programs and shaping the research agenda of the future. In 1990, the leadership of BBS and its Advisory Committee recognized the need for a fresh look at the Directorate and the research programs it oversees. Accordingly, the "Task Force Looking to the 21st Century" was formed and charged with: (1) evaluating the organizational structure of the BBS Directorate in terms of its effectiveness for meeting current and future scientific needs; (2) recommending options for change in the organizational structure and that would maximize the responsiveness of NSF to opportunities and challenges; and (3) identifying ways to ensure the optimal development of the sciences through improvements in the scientific infrastructure, in proposal review and program management, and other non- structural changes. The Task Force study was conducted over a 9-month period, with participation by scores of representatives from the scientific community. The resulting full report of the Task Force makes numerous recommendations for changes in NSF organizational structure and practices, many of which the Task Force believes are vital to the future health of the biological, behavioral, and social sciences. The Task Force recognizes that these recommendations will be implemented only after they have first been carefully considered, one by one, and accepted by NSF and its advisory bodies at all levels. We also recognize that available funds and resources, as well as the need to obtain approval from appropriations authorities outside NSF, will in many cases limit the Foundation's ability to act on those recommendations it wishes to implement. For this reason, we have prioritized the recommendations in this Executive Summary. Those considered to be of the highest priority are presented in boldface, with their full text as set forth in the main report. Recommendations deemed as secondary but still important are summarized in the text discussion of each issue in the Summary. All recommendations, whether full or summarized, are followed by a reference to the page(s) of the main report wherein fuller discussion may be found. Divergence of the Disciplines Currently in BBS The enormous diversity of the disciplines encompassed by the BBS Directorate is obvious, and the growth and divergence of disciplines continues. Although there are numerous interdisciplinary interactions, a strong clustering of research interests and priorities has been seen within the Biological sciences on the one hand, and the Behavioral and Social sciences on the other. Because three of the five research divisions in the BBS Directorate are almost exclusively focused on biology, a perception has developed within the behavioral and social sciences community that the needs and interests of biologists predominate. Yet the emerging theories and concepts in the various behavioral and social sciences will be extremely important in our understanding of the sweeping changes taking place in human societies as we enter the 21st century. Consequently, the formation of a separate directorate for the social, economic, and psychological sciences (SEPS) was a major topic of discussion by the Task Force. The Task Force came to the conclusion that the scope of the present directorate is far too broad to give sufficient attention to the social, economic, and psychological sciences while still encompassing the full range of fields within the biological sciences. SEPS scientists outnumber biologists by a large margin. Scientists in the SEPS disciplines need an environment within NSF which fosters the particular styles of research and education they practice and which meets their needs more exactly. Further, instrumentation and data requirements in the SEPS and biological sciences differ considerably. Proper administration of these disciplines requires special attention, talent, and policies. Although the current leadership of the BBS directorate has worked very hard to include the SEPS in the reports and funding priorities for the directorate, funding remains at pre-1980 levels in most of these disciplines (even in actual dollar terms), and they are often not included in major Foundation programs and initiatives. In short, the SEPS need representation at the highest levels of decision-making in the Foundation through an Assistant Director. Through their own Assistant Director, the SEPS can participate in decisions on NSF resource allocations as equal partners with colleagues in the biological, geological, and physical sciences and engineering. Arguments against the separation, including the view that the SEPS need the biological sciences as a buffer to shield them from politically based criticism and the concern that a separation might hamper cross-disciplinary efforts between the two areas, were not compelling. Although the formation of two separate directorates will mean higher total administrative costs within NSF, the costs entailed were judged to be justified by the scientific benefits to be derived from the formation of the two directorates. Accordingly: The Task Force recommends that two distinct directorates be established to replace the present directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences. One of these is to be devoted to research in the biological sciences (BIO), and the other to the social, economic and psychological sciences (SEPS). Details concerning the precise division of present programs between the two directorates, and especially the internal organization of the SEPS Directorate, are left for future determination by the Foundation. The Task Force recommends that the widest possible formal consultation be undertaken to determine the division and program structure of the SEPS Directorate. However, such consultation should in no way delay the formation of the two proposed directorates. The SEPS Directorate should include such disciplines as economics, linguistics, sociology, cognitive science, psychology, geography, political science, and possibly anthropology, as well as such interdisciplinary fields as law and social science; and decision, risk, and management science. Both new directorates should also include a separate division or program responsible for infrastructure, instrumentation, measurement, and methodology. [pp. 29-35] Several areas are difficult to "divide" between the two directorates, and the productive relationships between such interdisciplinary areas (for example, neurosciences, anthropology, and the study of animal behavior) should be carefully nurtured. Cross-directorate activities will be necessary for these fields to maintain a distinct identity within NSF. [p. 36] While the detailed organization of a separate SEPS Directorate was a task beyond the scope and competence of the present Task Force, specific organizational issues in the proposed BIO Directorate were addressed more directly. An immediate concern was the presence of a perceived gap in the organizational structure. This lack is particularly important now, since much of the exciting work in genetics and molecular and cell biology is at the stage where it can be fruitfully applied at this level. Specifically, the study of biological sciences within the Foundation is structured along levels of biological organization from biological molecules to ecosystems. The missing level within this hierarchy is that relating to organisms. Aspects of organismal and comparative biology are studied in at least three current BBS programs, but each of these has its own emphases and directions independent of the study of integrated organisms. Over a dozen scientific societies testified to the Task Force that organismal biology is now not being well served by the Foundation. Thus, the primary recommendation relating to the structure of the new BIO Directorate is the following: The Task Force proposes that a new program be formed within the Biological Sciences Directorate at NSF to study the form and function of organisms in view of their evolution and environmental interaction. This program in organismal biology would support studies on structure and function at the organismal level and on the integration of different components in organismal function. The level of this research unit in the organizational hierarchy of the Directorate should be determined by NSF, in consultation with representatives of the research community. [pp. 38-40] The Task Force also suggested that most programs in the existing Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences (BNS) should remain in the proposed BIO Directorate. Any potential organizational structures should be considered in light of remaining programs, the proposed new organismal biology program, and the goal of fostering inter-unit research. In particular, programs in Language, Cognition, and Social Behavior should be moved to the SEPS Directorate. Although neurosciences should remain within the BIO Directorate, the field of behavioral neurosciences should be given additional representation within the SEPS Directorate. Because physical and cultural anthropologists tend to have different views regarding their proper placement within the new directorates, further deliberation on this question, including additional input from the anthropological community and others, will be necessary before a final decision is made. A Program in Science, Technology, and Society should remain in the Division of Instrumentation and Resources (DIR), within the Biological Sciences Directorate. [pp. 40-41] Fostering Interdisciplinary Research Although scientific change often occurs through strong advances in a single established discipline, today new knowledge appears with increasing frequency at the boundaries of disciplines. It is in the interaction between domains of knowledge that many of the most productive areas of research are found. The BBS Directorate recognizes this fact and attempts to adjust its structure and programs to accommodate interdisciplinary research. Nevertheless, the need for structure inevitably creates problems at the boundaries of organizational units. There is a concern that proposals at the boundaries may have less chance of being funded. Individual program officers may vary in their degree of commitment to supporting change. Finally, the enormous proposal review load (nearly 10,000 applications were reviewed in BBS during FY 1990) severely restricts the time available for NSF staff to learn about the newest concepts and developments and to explore cross-disciplinary opportunities with other program officers. The recommendations of the Task Force in this area reflect three premises: (1) the most important changes in science usually come from individual investigators; (2) the impact that individual NSF program officers have in fostering or impeding change cannot be overstated; and (3) interdisciplinary work and scientific change cannot develop without adequate support for the core disciplines. [pp. 47-48] Directorate level: The Assistant Director(s) should have a reserve fund of discretionary money to be directed at funding new interdisciplinary activities across divisions and directorates. Such funds should not be targeted to programs. The funds should be available on a competitive basis to Program Directors from two or more divisions who present, through their Division Directors, a joint request for funding for a specific project. The funding should be significant enough that program officers are willing to "stretch" their programs to compete successfully for it. [p. 51] Division level: The Directorate(s) should consider establishing Division Advisory Committees in addition to the Directorate Advisory Committee and the program panels. These committees would assist in identifying important and emerging issues in the fields served by the Directorate(s) and in suggesting ways in which those needs could be addressed. In particular, they could set larger-scale goals and directions and develop cross-division research initiatives. [pp. 40; 50] Program level: [pp. 48-50] Programs should be organized so that they are not constrained by disciplinary or departmental lines. Programs should not just enable, but actively sponsor, interdisciplinary work. Program Directors should be encouraged to meet with other Program Directors (in other divisions within the Directorate, as well as across directorates) to discuss the possibilities for joint funding of proposals that are now "falling between the cracks." The current large proposal load impedes communication among Program Directors regarding interdisciplinary opportunities. The recommendations of the NSF Merit Review Task Force should be adopted with regard to a more streamlined proposal review process and perhaps a shorter proposal.* (The Task Force did not favor the idea of a "preproposal.") More visiting scientists at NSF would reduce the proposal review load on all staff. A pool of reserve panelists that includes expertise from outside the areas of currently constituted panels should be maintained to help with proposal review in periods of peak workload. Each division should consider designating a person to be a facilitator of interdisciplinary research. This person would have no responsibility for proposal review, but would be charged with building bridges across programs, divisions, and especially directorates. Such a role might be ideal for a visiting scientist. Subpanels should be formed from two or more review panels to review interdisciplinary proposals. Visiting scientists, panelists, and reviewers should all be carefully selected for breadth of expertise. NSF should continue to publicize even more actively the existence of established cross-directorate programs, such as "shadow programs," as well as possibilities for new activities of this type. Other steps can also be taken to facilitate scientific change in general. For example, all Program Directors should meet routinely with their panels (as, indeed, many are now doing) to discuss and target new areas of interest and new initiatives. These discussions should inform the deliberations of the Division Advisory Committees. Also, university research faculty should be brought in during the summer to advise the program and division staff regarding current advances and trends in research. NSF must offer meaningful inducements (including the largest possible program budgets) to attract good program officers. Finally, NSF should not hesitate to take judicious risks in funding novel and innovative research. [pp. 49-50] New Initiatives Large-scale new initiatives (such as the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative and the Global Change Initiative) are becoming increasingly important as vehicles for scientific change. They are especially useful management mechanisms, for they provide new opportunities for basic research while inspiring the public and the Congress to support the work of the NSF. The Task Force recommends the continued development of new and attractive initiatives. These initiatives, whether encompassing one directorate or several, should be both large and broad, so as to maximize the number of new opportunities for basic research and the diversity of scientists applicable to that research. Such initiatives should have a set life span which should be extended only rarely. [p. 52] The sponsor(s) of any large-scale new initiative should structure funding for the initiative by identifying the basic research areas that will feed into the initiative and supporting those areas. NSF should identify the relevant disciplinary subelements; determine the amount of increase in the base that will be required; and request that amount to support its contribution. An overall architecture of the initiative across agencies would facilitate the identification of the important areas. Scientific societies should participate actively in development of such an architecture. However, excessive coordination of research agendas across federal agencies in pursuit of joint initiatives, leading to a rigid apportionment of responsibilities for areas of science, should be avoided. Flexibility must be a major priority. In implementing the initiative process, special care must be taken not to exclude sciences that are not readily associated with existing programs and divisions of NSF. This includes small or severely underfunded areas that do not have staff available to participate in the formulation of mission statements and research strategies (some of the SEPS disciplines are a case in point). [pp. 76-78] Mechanisms to Facilitate Collaborative Research Promoting interdisciplinary research, new initiatives, and cross-divisional and cross-directorate activities in NSF are all important mechanisms for advancing science. Equally important in an environment of rapid change is the provision of means for researchers to work together, pooling their knowledge and energies. Therefore, the Task Force developed several suggestions for new ways of collaborating and mechanisms by which NSF could encourage collaboration. NSF should provide temporary support for periods of up to 1 year for "Institutes Without Walls." These would be investigator-initiated, collaborative, multi-investigator research efforts that might function in a variety of ways. Some might require onsite work at a particular facility-- for example, for five investigators to study protein structure at a protein structure facility. Others would be conclaves of a group of researchers (numbering perhaps 25 or fewer) that would function like a Research Training Group, convened for a few weeks perhaps in the summer. This mechanism could be very useful for fostering interdisciplinary work--especially between directorates. Ongoing, naturally occurring mergers like that between economics and political science could be facilitated by such a mechanism; in many cases it would be preferable to establishing "bridge" programs. [p. 53] Long-term (1-2 years) collaborative arrangements should be set up so that whole laboratory groups could work together in physical proximity. A special case of an "Institute Without Walls," these activities could in fact be located at special facilities (at scanning tunneling microscopes, for example). The activity could be funded as supplements to single-investigator research grants; salaries could move with the researchers. [pp. 105-106] Gatherings focused on a specific scientific issue or set of issues, and involving fewer than 100 researchers for about 5 days, should be convened to give impetus to new research areas. These workshops could be funded by focusing Gordon conferences on the new fields or replacing them with new meetings in a new format. The workshops would differ from traditional Gordon conferences in that they would be one- time affairs and would be much more specifically focused. At these workshops, a specific assignment might be given to the participants (e.g., develop a model of fisheries off the Monterey coast), the outcome of which would be useful if it were successful. However, successful application would not be the point; it would be the exercise itself that would be important, and the establishment of linkages and ways of communicating among the participants. [p. 105] The SEPS and biological sciences are no longer low-budget. There are several steps NSF can take to maximize scientists' access to instrumentation and facilities while minimizing costs. These include: (a) promote joint interagency funding of instrument development and support, especially for big-ticket items; (b) establish multi-user facilities (i.e., multi-institutional, multi-Directorate sharing) and promote their cooperative use; and (c) tailor the uses of facilities that are being developed "for the common good" (e.g., NSFNET, parallel computing) to achieve maximum service and utility for users. The latter will require early input from all prospective users. The key consideration is that the instrument get maximum use--whether it be by one school, one state, or a region. [p. 65] "Institutes Without Walls" and other collaborative mechanisms should be viewed as nodes of interaction, neither permanent nor highly specialized. A facilitating infrastructure of computers and computer networks will be essential for the operation of these nodes. If necessary, these facilities could be funded as supplements to PI grants. [p. 105] As the globe shrinks through electronic communications, rapid transportation, and international business, the scale of science is rapidly becoming global in many fields. International studies require international collaboration. At present, the mechanisms for pursuing such studies are highly imperfect. In addition, the ability to collaborate productively with American researchers varies greatly across fields and countries. Better mechanisms are needed to facilitate international collaborative studies. NSF should convene colloquia, perhaps in conjunction with international scientific conferences, to discuss this topic. Foundations are a valuable source of both funds and expertise in this area. NSF should seek out, identify, and remove any obstacles that may be found to be impeding international studies. [pp. 80-81] Suggestions for Improving Funding Policies and Procedures Funding support is the lifeblood of research. Yet the Task Force recognizes that this is a time of budgetary austerity. Budget increases in science are generally small and hard-won, if they are won at all. Therefore, the Task Force was mindful of cost as it developed its recommendations and attempted wherever possible to suggest ways to minimize or offset the cost of implementing them, and to suggest criteria for making the allocation decision. Those recommendations that entail added cost describe actions that were judged to be essential for protecting the future of science. One such is the targeting of a field for special support. Occasionally it happens that, although a given field is important and necessary, the "market" fails: i.e., the number of scientists and faculty dwindles and programs disappear. A past example is plant biology, which had declined throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Current examples are systematic biology and certain areas of statistics and applied mathematics that are particularly relevant to the SEPS. The Task Force believes that such targeting is necessary under certain circumstances. The Task Force recommends that a field be targeted for special support when it is in danger of disappearing due to a shortage of researchers and faculty and either (a) it provides an essential service function (such as systematics collections), (b) circumstances such as a lack of facilities are preventing its growth, or (c) it is undergoing a transformation and revitalization through new research approaches. Continuation of such support should be keyed to assessment of its effectiveness. The scientific community has an important role to play in preventing the unwarranted and untimely death of a field and targeting it for special attention through workshops, initiatives, and personal efforts to draw attention to its needs. [pp. 50-51] The Task Force recommends that targeted programs or disciplines include a blueprint for how they are to be "mainstreamed." Mainstreaming would involve continuing the base funding for the program but ending the special funding. One mechanism for monitoring progress would be to assess at intervals (e.g., 5 years) whether the attainment of goals specified in the blueprint is on track with the timetable established there. [pp. 84-85] Certain categories of scientists--the untenured, the young, minorities, and women-- are more vulnerable to the vicissitudes of competition for grant funding. At the same time, the scientific community needs to expand its pool of faculty researchers and increase its diversity. Therefore, several recommendations are directed at funding policies relating to these groups. A special category of research awards, similar to the Presidential Young Investigator awards but more widely granted, should be made available to beginning investigators. Awardees would receive funding for 3 years in the SEPS and 5 years in the biological sciences. The review process would not be different from the existing process. The purpose would be to enable the beginning investigator to establish a research program before a renewal application is needed, rather than having the renewal come due just as the program is getting started. [p. 63] NSF should establish awards aimed at minorities and women, similar to the Research Career Development Awards (RCDAs) at NIH, that would encourage academic institutions to hire more diverse faculty and would help make research careers more attractive to talented minority and women students. These awards would allow the holders time to develop their scholarly skills; they would also encourage universities to move more women and minorities into career-track positions. The currently available Career Advancement Awards for women are an example of what might be done. [p. 64] Another suggestion would be for NSF to establish a program of non-renewable small grants to provide basic support to beginning or previously funded investigators whose applications fall below the funding line but above a certain pre-established level of the grant applications in a particular funding cycle. The amount of award would be independent of the budget requested in the proposal. The purpose of the program would be to ensure (1) that beginning investigators do not have to see their career end with their first job due to an inability to obtain funding, and (2) that existing laboratories do not have to be dismantled as the result of one renewal failure. [p. 64] The requirement for matching funds for instrumentation, while posing a problem for many institutions, is especially difficult for predominantly undergraduate schools-- and most especially for historically black or Hispanic colleges and universities. The Task Force recommends that NSF consider exercising flexibility in the requirement with regard to these categories of institutions. [p. 65] An important priority for the two directorates will be to retain the breadth of the sciences under their purview. In biology, that refers to the diversity of organisms, ecosystems, and research approaches. In SEPS, maintaining breadth means continuing to provide opportunities across a wide spectrum and not allowing programs to be captured by a dominant or fashionable perspective. Breadth is maintained better by funding a large number of small projects rather than a small number of large ones. [p. 84] Again in view of the constraints on available funds, the overall level of funding of Principal Investigators should be examined to ensure that funds are spent effectively on innovative research. In particular, new applications for already heavily funded programs should be scrutinized to ensure that augmentations of funding will be applied to new, not add-on, research topics. The intention here is not to obtain any form of parity, but to be sure that NSF funds are aimed at original projects, not just additional work in already well-funded lines of investigation. [p. 63] Given the paucity of funds, large long-term data bases such as those maintained in the SEPS have become controversial. In addition to whatever discipline-specific criteria seem appropriate, a general criterion should be applied to all such data base projects: they must be dynamic and responsive to changing science in their field. Large, long-term data bases should continue to be held to standards as strict as those for smaller grants. All such projects must be designed to be flexible and responsive to change. Also, a criterion for establishing large data bases should be that they can be used by scientists from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. [pp. 85-86] Finally, the Task Force recommends that construction and renovation ("bricks and mortar") should be given low priority for direct funding, except for specialized research facilities such as marine labs and field stations, and where lack of funds for renovation threatens the existence of an existing research facility. [p. 64] Improving Educational Opportunities and the Supply of Human Resources The number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the SEPS and biological sciences has declined sharply since the mid-1970s. The pool of 18-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. population is declining, and will continue to decline for the next decade. At the same time, the level of interest and capability of students in science and mathematics is falling off. Together, these trends point to a diminishing pool of scientists in many of the BBS fields. To promote scholarship while encouraging the valuable mentoring function, NSF should establish a program to provide research support to predominantly undergraduate institutions that send a relatively high percentage of their graduates to graduate and professional school. This program would provide a sum of money to the college to be used for research supplies, equipment, summer salaries, and travel to meetings. Grants would be awarded for 5 years; the criteria for renewal would be the record of the graduates of the institution in postgraduate training and the uses proposed by the institution in the application. Institutions that exceed a certain level of competitively funded research grants (discounting very small research grants and research contracts) would not be eligible. Historically black or Hispanic colleges and universities should be given special priority for these grants. [pp. 63-64] The Task Force was concerned about the shrinking pool of students entering the science "pipeline," a problem that affects the SEPS and biological sciences as it does all other sciences. NSF's Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate has recently had its charge and funding expanded partly to address this problem at the precollege (K-12) level. There was a feeling that the greatest leverage can be gained by placing the emphasis on teachers, rather than on students directly. Teachers are the effectors who touch large numbers of students directly year after year. If they can be revitalized in science, the effect on students should be considerable. The development of programs to expose teachers to the process as well as the content of contemporary science, especially in a context of actual laboratory or field research experience, should therefore be a priority. NSF should develop programs to involve primary and secondary school teachers, as well as community college teachers, in the experience of working in science. One mechanism would be to extend the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program to teachers, who could be employed for the summer months with universities to work with NSF grantees. NSF Science and Technology Centers, with their emphasis on education and available program staff, would provide an ideal location for involving larger numbers of teachers and perhaps offering seminars for teachers. Local private sources as well as funds from school districts and universities could be solicited for support. Scientific societies should be able to apply for NSF funds to conduct workshops for teachers, just as universities can. State science teachers' associations can become involved to coordinate these programs and provide a focal point for recruitment and support. Such programs should be considered postgraduate training for the teachers, and participation should be rewarded by the school systems. [pp. 56-57; 61] Outreach from the scientific community can be broader than offering programs for teachers to attend. Programs should be put in place that permit working scientists to interact with the precollege educational structure through "visiting teacher" roles, lectures, participation in Science Fairs as consultants and judges, etc. Younger scientists would be particularly effective here. Predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship recipients should be encouraged to participate in outreach programs, and even to devise their own plan for doing so. A special type of research traineeship, the "outreach fellowship," should be established as a new category of postgraduate fellowship. These would be somewhat analogous to the teaching assistantships funded by academic institutions. Outreach fellowships would resemble conventional fellowships but would include a teaching and community service thrust. Funding for outreach fellowships should be provided jointly by the science directorate and the Education and Human Resources Directorate. [pp. 57; 61] The problems with precollege education are especially acute in the social, economic, and psychological sciences. High school students have virtually no exposure to SEPS curricula; nor are they exposed to the types of mathematics needed for SEPS research (statistics, probability, the use of linear models, input/output algorithms, etc.), or to any context for applying these methods in the SEPS. Thus, they arrive at college lacking the tools needed to pursue even entry-level work in the SEPS. The Task Force stresses that precollege exposure to SEPS curricula reflecting contemporary research, along with appropriate statistics and mathematics, is critical to the future of the SEPS sciences. NSF can play a major role in filling this gaping hole. Continued and increased coordination with the EHR Directorate is essential. First, basic research in the SEPS must begin to inform the precollege education programs of the EHR Directorate. Second, NSF must put its prestige behind the assertion that the social, economic, and psychological sciences are sciences. Third, the EHR Directorate should assemble a Task Force for curriculum analysis. Specific SEPS curriculum needs in mathematics and statistics must also be addressed. [pp. 57-58; 61-62] Education must keep pace with the evolving sciences. To facilitate scientific change, both training and professional enrichment in inter- and cross-disciplinary research approaches are needed at all levels of education and practice. For example, opportunities for graduate and postdoctoral students to obtain cross- disciplinary training are badly needed. One mechanism would involve graduate training in one field and postdoctoral work in another. The mechanism of a "complementary" master's degree program also could be employed, whereby a PhD candidate in one field could simultaneously obtain a master's degree in another field and prepare a dissertation reflecting that complementary training. [p. 52] Training opportunities also are needed for scientists in mid- career to acquire new or upgraded skills and knowledge to facilitate their research. (An example might be the comparative endocrinologist learning molecular biology techniques.) Opportunities are also needed for scientists in mid-career to obtain additional training in collateral fields, which is necessary for participation in cross- disciplinary research. (An example would be the economist who wishes to obtain training in ecological modeling, or a mathematician learning aspects of SEPS.) Such additional training at mid-career can stimulate a wealth of new ideas. [pp. 52-53] More mechanisms should be put in place to permit easier funding of sabbaticals to permit updating or retraining of scientists in mid-career. [pp. 62-63] Strengthening and Promoting NSF's Unique Role Throughout the latter half of this century, NSF has been the federal agency uniquely concerned with overseeing the maintenance, development, and advancement of basic scientific research, particularly in the long term. In recent years, the Foundation has also begun to pursue a certain amount of "mission-motivated" research, which is medium-term research conducted with the hope of contributing to the solution of a generally defined and not fully understood problem (such as the loss of species or the human impact on the environment). NSF remains unique among federal research-funding agencies because it does not support mission-oriented research (which is targeted toward near-term solution of a specific, well-defined problem). Basic and mission-motivated research differ from mission-oriented research in that they frequently produce unexpected results--and it is this access to the unexpected that is the true engine of scientific and technological advancement. The Task Force urges the proposed BIO and SEPS Directorates to pursue energetically their unique role, which is to support basic and mission-motivated research at all levels of biological and social organization, primarily in non-medical academic institutions in the case of biology, and over the long term in all cases. To this end, the directorates will have two important objectives: (1) to maintain diversity and support quality in scientific inquiry by maintaining the best research in the complete range of subdisciplines; and (2) to recognize, develop, and promote novel programs and rapidly advancing fields while being sure that scientific progress is not unbalanced by short-term considerations such as specific missions or "glamorous" fields. [pp. 70-72] In pursuing its unique role, BBS or the two new directorates will often appear to be duplicating the activities of the many agencies that focus on a specific mission or on some aspect of science. This overlap will surely occur, for example, at the molecular and cellular levels in biology--where phenomena are general, applicable to human health and disease, agriculture, and energy production, and therefore within the mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This overlap means that a portion of the scientific community draws support for its research from more than one agency. However, it also means that a significant percentage of proposals are submitted in virtually identical form to BBS (or the proposed BIO Directorate) and one or more other agencies, with only one source providing all of the funding. These duplicate applications increase the overall proposal load and diminish the uniqueness of the Directorate's role by diluting the basic character of proposals submitted. To reduce the administrative load caused by duplicate applications and their blurring of the proposed BIO Directorate's image vis-a-vis the NIH and other mission agencies, such proposals should not be accepted for processing by the Directorate. True joint submissions (to two or more agencies or NSF directorates), like all applications, should continue to be evaluated for their relevance to the special interests of the Foundation: i.e., fundamental scientific significance and importance to scientific training. [p. 73] This recommendation is specifically aimed at the proposed BIO Directorate; the proposed SEPS Directorate, having no agency like the NIH with which it shares a large constituency, should find that duplicate applications pose no problem. The unique role of the Directorate has not been adequately communicated, either to the public at large or to its representatives in the Congress. NSF must become more vocal and effective in convincing Congress that science is a priority. It is particularly important for NSF to raise the visibility of the social, economic, and psychological sciences and promote the need for basic research in these fields. BBS (or the two new directorates) can do their part by presenting a strong message through publications such as the annual reports of the Foundations and the directorate(s). NSF should strive to improve the reporting of science issues to the public by holding conferences for science journalists and urging universities to establish more interdisciplinary graduate programs in science journalism. The scientific societies and the university associations also have a distinct role to play through their legislative affairs offices. To be most persuasive, however, this message should come from the President; efforts should be made to gain direct Presidential support for science in general and NSF in particular. [pp. 74-76] Presuming continued tight funding, NSF can pursue its role of maintaining the diversity of science and fostering the emergence of new fields only by making difficult choices. Making those choices will require that the Foundation maintain a clear view of its priorities. One priority for NSF should be to take the long view. Other government agencies tend to take a shorter view of science, one dictated by their mission needs. NSF's long view of science will help to ensure that temporarily unfashionable fields receive support before they are irretrievable damaged. Most importantly, though, it will lead NSF to fund research in areas where fundamental discoveries will fuel the mission-motivated and mission-oriented research of the future. NSF should fund a certain number of long-term projects (5 years or longer) in different areas, without regard for their potential for near-term application. [pp. 83-84] The Task Force urges continued support for selected long- term projects, including Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites, large data bases, etc. Specific projects not now included should be examined for possible support (e.g., germplasm maintenance); this is especially true for the SEPS, which have many longstanding unmet needs. Procedures for evaluating long-term projects from the standpoint of "sunsetting" them (non-renewal) or moving them to more appropriate institutions when necessary should be formalized. [pp. 64-65] The Division Advisory Committees of the Directorates should be charged with maintaining the long view of the sciences under their purview. They should also identify specific base areas (e.g., systematics) and facilities (e.g., collections) that must be maintained regardless of current fashions in science. Essential base areas and facilities must be identified before they suffer permanent erosion or loss, and mechanisms for doing so are needed. [pp. 83- 84] Finally, to help maintain an awareness of long-term trends, NSF should institutionalize the receiving of input from the scientific community, such as took place during the hearings held by this Task Force. A mechanism (perhaps a general forum) should be established whereby professional societies and other interested groups can provide testimony to NSF on a regular basis regarding the emerging and long-term needs and opportunities in the sciences. [pp. 51-52] Major Themes in Future Research The Task Force concluded its study by developing an informal overview of some of the specific research thrusts that are likely to establish a high priority in the various disciplines of the biological, social, economic, and psychological sciences over the next 10-20 years. A predominant theme in the BIO area is the movement of biological sciences away from analytical reductionism--in which scientists strive to learn the simplest facts and rules about biological organisms or units--toward integration, which involves understanding the most complex relationships within and between biological systems. The multidisciplinary approach is inherent in such an endeavor. Multidisciplinary research is also a major theme in the SEPS, where efforts to understand complex systems involve the interaction of components that have traditionally been thought of as falling within distinct fields. A second theme in the SEPS is the desire to push the foundations of the individual sciences toward deeper and more general sets of principles and laws. New disciplines are emerging as the basic tools provided by the existing disciplines are focused on phenomena that were previously overlooked. A sharing of knowledge across disciplines is becoming possible to a greater extent than ever before. Thus, a blossoming of sciences is occurring, especially in the SEPS, as the disciplines isolate key aspects of phenomena and as rigorous, patient analysis leads to the identification of scientific principles in areas where none were thought to exist. Divergence--i.e., further specialization--will continue to be important in fields whose analytic knowledge bases are still being built. Various recommendations of the Task Force are designed to facilitate that process where it is needed. However, in the view of the Task Force, convergence--of disciplines, knowledge bases, and researchers-- will be a major hallmark for many fields of science in the 21st century. Many of the recommendations of the Task Force are designed to encourage this process of convergence. * National Science Foundation. Report of the Merit Review Task Force, August 23, 1990, Washington, DC.