Download Free An Assessment Of The National Science Foundations Science And Technology Centers Program Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online An Assessment Of The National Science Foundations Science And Technology Centers Program and write the review.

The National Science Foundation requested that the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the NAS, the NAE, and the IOM form a panel to evaluate the accomplishments of the NSF Science and Technology Centers program (not individual centers) against its goals in research, education, and knowledge transfer. This report is the result of the work of the panel charged with that effort, and provides recommendations for moving forward.
The Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC) Impact Assessment Committee was convened by the National Research Council in response to an informal request from the National Science Foundation. Charged to examine the impact of the MRSEC program and to provide guidance for the future, the committee included experts from across materials research as well as several from outside the field. The committee developed a general methodology to examine the MRSEC centers and after extensive research and analysis, came to the following conclusions. MRSEC center awards continue to be in great demand. The intense competition within the community for them indicates a strong perceived value. Using more quantitative measures, the committee examined the performance and impact of MRSEC activities over the past decade in the areas of research, facilities, education and outreach, and industrial collaboration and technology transfer. The MRSEC program has had important impacts of the same high standard of quality as those of other multi-investigator or individual-investigator programs. Although the committee was largely unable to attribute observed impacts uniquely to the MRSEC program, MRSECs generally mobilize efforts that would not have occurred otherwise. Because of an observed decline in the effectiveness of the centers, the committee recommended a restructuring the MRSEC program to allow more efficient use and leveraging of resources. The new program should fully invest in centers of excellence as well as in stand-alone teams of researchers to allow tighter focus on key strengths of the program. In its report, the committee outlines one potential vision for how this might be accomplished in a revenue-neutral fashion.
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is one of the largest examples of U.S. public-private partnerships. Founded in 1982, SBIR was designed to encourage small business to develop new processes and products and to provide quality research in support of the many missions of the U.S. government, including health, energy, the environment, and national defense. In response to a request from the U.S. Congress, the National Research Council assessed SBIR as administered by the five federal agencies that together make up 96 percent of program expenditures. This book, one of six in the series, reports on the SBIR program at the National Science Foundation. The study finds that the SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice, but that it can also be improved. Currently, the program is delivering results that meet most of the congressional objectives, including stimulating technological innovation, increasing private-sector commercialization of innovations, using small businesses to meet federal research and development needs, and fostering participation by minority and disadvantaged persons. The book suggests ways in which the program can improve operations, continue to increase private-sector commercialization, and improve participation by women and minorities.
Grants for research centers located in universities, medical centers, and other nonprofit research institutions account for about 9 percent of the National Institutes of Health budget. Centers are popular because they can bring visibility, focus, and increased resources to bear on specific diseases. However, congressional debate in 2001 over proposed legislation directing NIH to set up centers for muscular dystrophy research highlighted several areas of uncertainty about how to decide when centers are an appropriate research mechanism in specific cases. The debate also highlighted a growing trend among patient advocacy groups to regard centers as a key element of every disease research program, regardless of how much is known about the disease in question, the availability of experienced researchers, and other factors. This book examines the criteria and procedures used in deciding whether to establish new specialized research centers. It discusses the future role of centers in light of the growing trend of large-scale research in biomedicine, and it offers recommendations for improving the classification and tracking of center programs, clarifying and improving the decision process and criteria for initiating center programs, resolving the occasional disagreements over the appropriateness of centers, and evaluating the performance of center programs more regularly and systematically.
At the request of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a review of the Geospace Section of the NSF Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences was undertaken in 2015. The Portfolio Review Committee was charged with reviewing the portfolio of facilities, research programs, and activities funded by Geospace Section and to recommend critical capabilities and the balance of investments needed to enable the science program articulated in the 2013 NRC decadal survey Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. The Portfolio Review Committee's report Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025 (ICCGS) was accepted by the Advisory Committee for Geosciences in April 2016. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review provides an independent assessment of the ICCGS report. This publication assesses how well the ICCGS provides a clear set of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for Geospace Section that align with the science priorities of the NRC decadal survey, and adequately take into account issues such as the current budget outlook and the science needs of the community. Additionally, this study makes recommendations focused on options and considerations for NSF's implementation of the ICCGS recommendations.
Interdisciplinary research is a cooperative effort by a team of investigators, each an expert in the use of different methods and concepts, who have joined in an organized program to attack a challenging problem. Each investigator is responsible for the research in their area of discipline that applies to the problem, but together the investigators are responsible for the final product. The need for interdisciplinary training activities has been detailed over the last 25 years in both public and private reports. The history of science and technology has even shown the important advances that arose from interdisciplinary research, including plate tectonics which brought together geologists, oceanographers, paleomagnetists, seismologists, and geophysicists to advance the ability to forecast earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. In recognition of this, the need to train scientists who can address the highly complex problems that challenge us today and fully use new knowledge and technology, and the fact that cooperative efforts have proved difficult, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), the National Institute on Nursing Research (NINR), and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) requested that an Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee be created to complete several tasks including: examining the needs and strategies for interdisciplinary training in the brain, behavioral, social, and clinical sciences, defining necessary components of true interdisciplinary training in these areas, and reviewing current educational and training programs to identify elements of model programs that best facilitate interdisciplinary training. Bridging Disciplines in the Brain, Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences provides the conclusions and recommendations of this committee. Due to evaluations of the success of interdisciplinary training programs are scarce, the committee could not specify the "necessary components" or identify the elements that "best facilitate" interdisciplinary training. However, after reviewing existing programs and consulting with experts, the committee identified approaches likely to be successful in providing direction for interdisciplinary endeavors at various career stages. This report also includes interviews, training programs, and workshop agendas used.
National Science Foundation (NSF) is a unique federal agency because it supports scientific research financially, but does not engage in scientific work itself. Its history is known only in part because the NSF is a vibrant, expanding, and living entity that makes the final telling of its story impossible. Much can be learned from its beginning as well as its component parts. If the founding of the NSF in 1950 was couched in an era of physics, especially atomic physics, certainly by the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, biology was, and remains, the queen of sciences for the predictable future. This book highlights the elite status of America’s biological sciences as they were funded, affected, and, to a very real degree, interactively guided by the NSF. It examines important events in the earlier history of the Foundation because they play strongly upon the development of the various biology directorates. Issues such as education, applied research, medical science, the National Institutes of Health, the beginnings of biotechnology, and other matters are also discussed.
At a time when scientific and technical innovation now requires a multitude of heterogeneous inputs and expertise from the public and private sectors alike, cooperative research centers (CRCs) have emerged as the predominant vehicle for cross-sector collaboration. In the U.S. alone, there are thousands of CRCs on university campuses, and agencies like the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and more recently the Department of Energy fund CRCs to address some of the nation’s most formidable challenges with science and technology, including cancer and other diseases, terrorism surveillance and the detection of weapons of mass destruction, and new energy technologies and smart energy grid development. Industry oftentimes participates in CRCs for access to knowledge, capacity development, and to mitigate risk. This volume includes research investigating CRCs from North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia to explore the dynamics of CRCs, including but not limited to resource allocation, structure, level of sponsorship, organization and membership, management and operations, objectives and goals, and in doing so identifies both differences and similarities across institutional and national contexts. The volume sheds light on the role of CRCs in promoting innovation, S&T policy, and economic development, and on the practical aspects of successful CRC management. Moreover, the works included in the volume consider the implications for the various stakeholder groups (firms, universities, researchers, students, policymakers) invested in CRCs.