NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/sci/research/1279

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-12 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!know!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!darwin.sura.net!dtix!relay!diamond.nswc.navy.mil!rsherme
From: [e-mail] (Russel Shermer (R43))
Newsgroups: sci.research
Subject: fyi #146: Final Meeting of the Commission on the Future of NSF
Keywords: science, funding, legislation, nsf.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:33:25 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det. R43
Lines: 70

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]



Final Meeting of the Commission on the Future of NSF

FYI No. 146, November 12, 1992


The third and final meeting of the Commission on the Future of the
National Science Foundation was held on November 7.  Although this
was the shortest of the three meetings, it provided the clearest
indication about the report due on November 20.

The Commission was originally charged with examining the future
role of the NSF.  The final report is likely to go considerably
beyond this mandate, reviewing federal science and technology
policy and the conduct of research and development in America.
This report is only the first step of what National Science Board
Chairman James Duderstadt promised would be a lengthy process of
internal Board discussions and meetings across the country.
Duderstadt, while noting that NSF commissions are uncommon, said
the "issues of the day demanded" the present commission, and
predicted the report would be a mechanism for launching a dialogue
on science policy.  He also said that the report would serve as a
foundation for Board meetings on future NSF budget requests.
Perhaps most importantly, Duderstadt said with the incoming Clinton
Administration, the forthcoming report "could have great impact."

NSF Director Walter Massey reiterated many of Duderstadt's remarks.
Massey said he was "very gratified" with the 800+ letters the
commission received, saying that this review has generated more
comment than any other issue in NSF history.  He commented that
because of the election, no policy area is changing faster than
that of science and technology.  The "time is at hand," Massey
said, for the Board to participate in a dialogue on U.S. leadership
as we move into the 21st century.

Commission members discussed a series of paragraphs that will be
used as general guideposts for the November 20 report, such as
incentives, goals, interdisciplinary research, and education.
There was considerable discussion about the size of NSF grants, the
consensus being that they should increase considerably (co-chairman
William Danforth suggested by a factor of 2.)  The commission also
discussed the impacts of NSF support spreading into more areas
without a concomitant increase in funding, as well as the somewhat
touchy issues of "scientific birth control" and "technology
transfer."  Many of the commission members saw technology transfer
as a vague concept, some going so far as to call it facile and
shallow.  Director Massey was somewhat uncomfortable with this
characterization, which is probably due to strong congressional
pressure for NSF leadership in this area.

Commission co-chairman Robert Galvin said about 3/4 of the
commission's work is completed, and that they are ready to write
the report.  There seems to be general agreement on the issues,
with a final report now due in about two weeks.  Galvin summarized
the pending report aptly: "We've got something to say."

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
[phone]
##END##########