preface.pmd

NSB 02-190

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

SCIENCE AND

ENGINEERING

INFRASTRUCTURE

FOR

THE 21

CENTURY:

THE ROLE OF THE

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FEBRUARY 6, 2003

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

iii

TIONALTIONAL

TIONAL

CIENCECIENCE

CIENCE

ARDARD

ARD

The National Science Board consists of 24 members plus the Director of the National Science

Foundation. Appointed by the President, the Board serves as the policy-making body of the

Foundation and provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of national science

and engineering policy.

Warren M. Washington (Chair), Senior Scientist and Head, Climate Change Research

Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Diana S. Natalicio (Vice Chair), President, The University of Texas at El Paso

Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation and member ex officio

Barry C. Barish #, Linde Professor of Physics and Director, LIGO Laboratory, California

Institute of Technology

Steven C. Beering #, President Emeritus, Purdue University

Ray M. Bowen #, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University

Delores M. Etter #, ONR Distinguished Chair in Science and Technology, Electrical

Engineering Department, U.S. Naval Academy

Nina V. Fedoroff, Willaman Professor of Life Sciences, Director, Life Sciences Consortium,

and Director, Biotechnology Institute, The Pennsylvania State University

Pamela A. Ferguson, Professor and Former President, Grinnell College

Kenneth M. Ford #, Director, Institute for the Interdisciplinary Study of Human and

Machine Cognition, University of West Florida

Daniel Hastings #, Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics and Co-Director, Technology and

Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Elizabeth Hoffman #, President, University of Colorado System

Anita K. Jones, Quarles Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of

Computer Science, University of Virginia

George M. Langford, Professor, Department of Biological Science, Dartmouth College

Jane Lubchenco, Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology and Distinguished

Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University

Joseph A. Miller, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Corning, Inc.

Douglas D. Randall #, Professor of Biochemistry and Director, Interdisciplinary Plant

Group, University of Missouri-Columbia

Robert C. Richardson, Vice Provost for Research and Professor of Physics, Department of

Physics, Cornell University

Michael G. Rossmann, Hanley Distinguished Professor of Biological Sciences, Department

of Biological Sciences, Purdue University

Maxine Savitz, General Manager, Technology Partnerships, Honeywell (Retired)

Luis Sequeira, J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus, Departments of Bacteriology and Plant

Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Daniel Simberloff, Nancy Gore Hunger Professor of Environmental Science, Department of

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee

Jo Anne Vasquez #, Educational Science Consultant, Gilbert, Arizona

John A. White, Jr., Chancellor, University of Arkansas

Mark S. Wrighton, Chancellor, Washington University

Gerard R. Glaser, Acting Executive Officer, National Science Board

# Consultants, pending Senate confirmation

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONiv

TIONALTIONAL

TIONAL

CIENCECIENCE

CIENCE

ARDARD

ARD

OMMITTEEOMMITTEE

OMMITTEE

OGRAMSOGRAMS

OGRAMS

ANDAND

AND

LANSLANS

LANS

ASKASK

ASK

ORCEORCE

ORCE

CIENCECIENCE

CIENCE

ANDAND

AND

NGINEERINGNGINEERING

NGINEERING

NFRASTRUCTURENFRASTRUCTURE

NFRASTRUCTURE

John A. White, Jr., Chair

Anita K. Jones

Jane Lubchenco

Robert C. Richardson

Michael G. Rossmann

Mark S. Wrighton

Mary E. Clutter

Assistant Director, Biological Sciences,

National Science Foundation

Warren M. Washington, Ex Officio

Chair, National Science Board

Rita R. Colwell, Ex Officio

Director, National Science Foundation

Paul J. Herer, Executive Secretary

ONTENTSONTENTS

ONTENTS

PREFACE ......................................................................................... vii

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................ ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 7

 Background .................................................................................................. 7

 The Charge to the Task Force ...................................................................... 9

 Strategy for Conducting the Study ............................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2: THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE ............................. 13

 History and Current Status ......................................................................... 13

 The Importance of Partnerships .................................................................. 20

 The Next Dimension ................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 3: THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ................. 27

 NSF Leadership Role ................................................................................... 27

 Establishing Priorities for Large Projects .................................................... 28

 Current Programs and Strategies ................................................................ 31

 Future Needs and Opportunities ................................................................. 38

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 47

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .................................................................. 51

APPENDICES

 A: The Charge to the Task Force on Science and

Engineering Infrastructure ...................................................................... 53

 B: Selected Bibliography .............................................................................. 55

 C: Sources of Public Comment .................................................................... 59

 D: Selected Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................... 61

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

vii

REFREF

REF

CECE

Experimental and observational research depends upon the quality of the

infrastructure and the tools that are accessible to the researcher. Modern

tools provide more coverage, more precision and more accuracy for

experiments and observations. Indeed, some modern tools open

experimental vistas that are closed to those lacking modern infrastructure

and tools.

Fueled by exponential growth in computing power, communication bandwidth,

and data storage, the Nation’s research infrastructure is increasingly

characterized by interconnected, distributed systems of hardware, software,

information bases, and expert systems. The new research tools arising from

this activity enable scientists and engineers to be more productive and to

approach more complex and different frontier tasks than they could in the

past. Also, because of their distributed character, these tools are becoming

more accessible to increasing numbers of researchers and educators across

the Nation, thus putting more ideas to work.

This change has created unprecedented challenges and opportunities for 21

century scientists and engineers. Consequently, in September 2000, the

National Science Board established the Task Force on Science and

Engineering Infrastructure within its Committee on Programs and Plans. The

task force was created to assess the current state of U.S. S&E academic

research infrastructure, examine its role in enabling S&E advances, and

identify requirements for a future infrastructure capability.

This report, Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21

Century, presents

the findings and recommendations developed by the task force and approved

unanimously by the National Science Board. The report aims to inform the

national dialogue on S&E infrastructure and highlight the role of NSF as well

as the larger resource and management strategies of interest to Federal

policymakers.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONviii

On behalf of the National Science Board, I wish to commend Dr. John White,

the chair of the task force, and the other task force members – Dr. Anita

Jones, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Dr. Robert Richardson, Dr. Michael Rossmann,

and Dr. Mark Wrighton of the National Science Board, and Dr. Mary Clutter,

NSF Assistant Director for Biological Sciences. Mr. Paul Herer of the NSF

Office of Integrative Activities provided superb and tireless support as the

executive secretary to the task force.

The Board is especially grateful for the strong support provided throughout by

the Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Rita Colwell, and by

NSF’s Deputy Director, Dr. Joseph Bordogna.

Warren M. Washington

Chair, National Science Board

CKNOWLEDGEMENTSCKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several of our colleagues were critical to initiation of the National Science

Board’s study. These include former National Science Board (NSB) Chair

Eamon Kelly, and former Chairman of the NSB Committee on Programs and

Plans, John Armstrong, who oversaw the initial phase of this inquiry.

Extensive contributions were also made by former members of the Task Force

on Science and Engineering Infrastructure (INF): Robert Eisenstein, Vera

Rubin, and Warren Washington. Later, Dr. Washington, as NSB Chair, helped

to guide this study to its completion.

A number of people assisted the task force as speakers and presenters,

including Daniel Atkins, University of Michigan; Robin Staffin, Department

of Energy; and William Stamper, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. We also wish to thank Office of Management and Budget

staff, Sarah Horrigan and David Radzanowski, and Office of Science and

Technology Policy staff, Michael Holland, who encouraged us and helped

shape the direction of our inquiry in numerous productive conversations.

We appreciate the unstinting support of National Science Foundation (NSF)

staff. In particular, the NSF Assistant Directors and office heads, former and

current, worked closely with the task force, frequently submitting written

documents, making presentations, and participating in meetings. We would

like to thank NSF staff members Stephanie Bianchi, Leslie Christovich,

Pamela Green, Stephen Mahaney, and Brett Mervis, all of whom made unique

contributions to the report. We also thank the NSB Office staff who guided

and supported all aspects of the Board’s effort, including Gerard Glaser,

Marta Cehelsky, Janice Baker, Catherine Hines, Jean Pomeroy, and

Robert Webber.

Finally, we are grateful for the participation of many members of the science

and engineering community who provided helpful comments and suggestions

when the draft report was released for public comment on the NSF/NSB Web

site. (These individuals are listed in Appendix C.)

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

XECUTIVEXECUTIVE

XECUTIVE

UMMARYUMMARY

UMMARY

This report, based on a study conducted by the National Science Board (NSB),

aims to inform the national dialogue on the current state and future direction of

the science and engineering (S&E) infrastructure. It highlights the role of the

National Science Foundation (NSF) as well as the larger resource and

management strategies of interest to Federal policymakers in both the executive

and legislative branches.

ONTEXTONTEXT

ONTEXT

ANDAND

AND

RAMEWORKRAMEWORK

RAMEWORK

FORFOR

FOR

THETHE

THE

TUDTUD

TUD

There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research infrastructure is

critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in S&E. New tools have opened vast

research frontiers and fueled technological innovation in fields such as

biotechnology, nanotechnology, and communications. The degree to which

infrastructure is regarded as central to experimental research is indicated by

the number of Nobel Prizes awarded for the development of new instrument

technology. During the past twenty years, eight Nobel Prizes in physics were

awarded for technologies such as the electron and scanning tunneling

microscopes, laser and neutron spectroscopy, particle detectors, and the

integrated circuit.

Recent concepts of infrastructure are expanding to include distributed systems

of hardware, software, information bases, and automated aids for data analysis

and interpretation. Enabled by information technology, a qualitatively different

and new S&E infrastructure has evolved, delivering greater computational power,

increased access, distribution and shared use, and new research tools, such as

data analysis and interpretation aids, Web-accessible databases, archives, and

collaboratories. Many viable research questions can be answered only through

the use of new generations of these powerful tools.

Among Federal agencies, NSF is a leader in providing the academic community

with access to forefront instrumentation and facilities. Much of this

infrastructure is intended to address currently intractable research questions,

the answers to which may transform current scientific thinking. In an era of

fast-paced discovery, it is imperative that NSF’s infrastructure investments

provide the maximum benefit to the entire S&E community. NSF must be

prepared to assume a greater S&E infrastructure role for the benefit of the

Nation.

Nobel e-Museum (http://www.nobel.se).

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

TRATRA

TRA

TEGYTEGY

TEGY

FORFOR

FOR

THETHE

THE

ONDUCTONDUCT

ONDUCT

OFOF

THETHE

THE

TUDTUD

TUD

The Board, through its Task Force on S&E Infrastructure (INF), engaged in a

number of activities designed to assess the general state and direction of the

academic research infrastructure and illuminate the most promising future

opportunities. These activities included reviewing the current literature,

analyzing quantitative survey data, soliciting input from experts in the S&E

community, discussing infrastructure topics with representatives from the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP), and other Federal agencies, and surveying NSF’s principal directorates

and offices on S&E infrastructure needs and opportunities. A draft report was

released for public comment on the NSB/NSF Web site. Many comments were

received and carefully considered in producing the final draft of this report (see

Appendix C).

RINCIPRINCIP

RINCIP

ALAL

INDINGSINDINGS

INDINGS

ANDAND

AND

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONSTIONS

TIONS

Over the past decade, the funding for academic research infrastructure has not

kept pace with rapidly changing technology, expanding research opportunities,

and increasing numbers of users. Information technology and other technologies

have enabled the development of many new S&E tools and made others more

powerful, remotely usable, and connectable. The new tools being developed

make researchers more productive and able to do more complex and different

tasks than they could in the past. An increasing number of researchers and

educators, working as individuals and in groups, need to be connected to a

sophisticated array of facilities, instruments, databases, technical literature

and data. Hence, there is an urgent need to increase Federal investments to

provide access for scientists and engineers to the latest and best S&E

infrastructure, as well as to update infrastructure currently in place.

To address these concerns, the Board makes the following five

recommendations

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONTION

TION

1:1:

Increase the share of the NSF budget devoted to S&E infrastructure in

order to provide individual investigators and groups of investigators

with the tools they need to work at the frontier.

The current 22 percent of the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure is too low to

provide adequate small- and medium-scale infrastructure and needed

investment in cyberinfrastructure. A share closer to the higher end of the

historic range (22–27 percent) is desirable. It is hoped that significant additional

resources for infrastructure will be provided through future growth of the NSF

budget.

The NSB will periodically assess the implementation of these recommendations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONTION

TION

2:2:

Give special emphasis to the following four categories of

infrastructure needs:



Increase research to advance instrument technology and build next-

generation observational, communications, data analysis and

interpretation, and other computational tools.

Instrumentation research is often difficult and risky, requiring the successful

integration of theoretical knowledge, engineering and software design, and

information technology. In contrast to most other infrastructure technologies,

commercially available data analysis and data interpretation software typically

lags well behind university-developed software, which is often not funded or

under funded, limiting its use and accessibility. This research will accelerate

the development of instrument technology to ensure that future research

instruments and tools are as efficient and effective as possible.



Address the increased need for midsize infrastructure.

While there are special NSF programs for addressing “small” and “large”

infrastructure needs, none exist for infrastructure projects costing between

millions and tens of millions of dollars. This report cites numerous examples of

unfunded midsize infrastructure needs that have long been identified as high

priorities. NSF should increase the level of funding for midsize infrastructure,

as well as develop new funding mechanisms, as appropriate, to support midsize

projects.



Increase support for large facility projects.

Several large facility projects have been approved for funding by the NSB but

have not been funded. At present, an annual investment of at least $350 million

is needed over several years to address the backlog of facility projects

construction. Postponing this investment now will not only increase the future

cost of these projects but also result in the loss of U.S. leadership in key

research fields.



Develop and deploy an advanced cyberinfrastructure to enable new

S&E in the 21

century.

This investment should address leading-edge computation as well as

visualization facilities, data analysis and interpretation toolkits and

workbenches, data archives and libraries, and networks of much greater power

and in substantially greater quantity. Providing access to moderate-cost

computation, storage, analysis, visualization, and communication for every

researcher will lead to an even more productive national research enterprise.

Design of these new technologies and capabilities must be guided by the needs

of a variety of potential users, including scientists and engineers from many

The order of presentation does not imply a priority ranking.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

disciplines. This important undertaking requires a significant investment in

software and technical staff, as well as hardware. This new infrastructure will

play a critical role in creating tomorrow’s research vistas.

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONTION

TION

Expand education and training opportunities at new and existing

research facilities.

Investment in S&E infrastructure is critical to developing a 21

century S&E

workforce. Education, training and outreach activities should be vital elements

of all major research facility programs. Educating people to understand how S&E

instruments and facilities work and how they uniquely contribute to knowledge

in their targeted disciplines is critical. Outreach should span many diverse

communities, including existing researchers and educators who may become

new users, undergraduate and graduate students who may design and use

future instruments, and kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) students, who

may be motivated to become scientists and engineers. There are also

opportunities to expand access to state-of-the-art S&E infrastructure to faculty

and students at primarily undergraduate colleges and universities.

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONTION

TION

Strengthen the infrastructure planning and budgeting process through

the following actions:



Foster systematic assessments of U.S. academic research infrastructure

needs for both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary fields of research. Re-

assess current surveys of infrastructure needs to determine if they fully

measure and are responsive to current requirements.



Develop specific criteria and indicators to assist in establishing priorities

and balancing infrastructure investments across S&E disciplines and

fields.



Develop and implement budgets for infrastructure projects that include the

total costs to be incurred over the entire life-cycle of the project, including

research, planning, design, construction, commissioning, maintenance,

operations, and, to the extent possible, research funding.



Conduct an assessment to determine the most effective NSF budget

structure for supporting S&E infrastructure projects throughout their life-

cycles, including the early research and development that is often difficult

and risky.

Because of the need for the Federal Government to act holistically in addressing

the requirements of the Nation’s science and engineering enterprise, the Board

developed a fifth recommendation, aimed principally at the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Science and Technology Policy

(OSTP), and the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ECOMMENDECOMMEND

ECOMMEND

TIONTION

TION

5:5:

Develop interagency plans and strategies to do the following:



Work with the relevant Federal agencies and the S&E community to

establish interagency infrastructure priorities that rely on competitive

merit review to select S&E infrastructure projects.



Stimulate the development and deployment of new infrastructure

technologies to foster a new decade of infrastructure innovation.



Develop the next generation of the high-end high-performance computing

and networking infrastructure needed to enable a broadly based S&E

community to work at the research frontier.



Facilitate international partnerships to enable the mutual support and use

of research facilities across national boundaries.



Protect the Nation’s massive investment in S&E infrastructure against

accidental or malicious attacks and misuse.

ONCLUSIONONCLUSION

ONCLUSION

Rapidly changing infrastructure technology has simultaneously created a

challenge and an opportunity for the U.S. S&E enterprise. The challenge is how

to maintain and revitalize an academic research infrastructure that has eroded

over many years due to obsolescence and chronic underinvestment. The

opportunity is to build a new infrastructure that will create future research

frontiers and enable a broader segment of the S&E community. The challenge

and opportunity must be addressed by an integrated strategy. As current

infrastructure is replaced and upgraded, the next-generation infrastructure

must be created. The young people who are trained using state-of-the-art

instruments and facilities are the ones who will demand and create the new

tools and make the breakthroughs that will extend the science and technology

envelope. Training these young people will ensure that the U.S. maintains

international leadership in the key scientific and engineering fields that are

vital for a strong economy, social order, and national security.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE

NTRNTR

NTR

ODUCTIONODUCTION

ODUCTION

CKGRCKGR

CKGR

OUNDOUND

OUND

Since the beginning of civilization, the tools humans invented and used have

enabled them to pursue and realize their dreams. New tools have opened vast

research and education vistas and enabled scientists and engineers to explore

new regimes of time and space. Advanced techniques in areas such as

microscopy, spectroscopy, and laser technology have made it possible to image

and manipulate individual atoms and fabricate new materials. Advances in radio

astronomy and instrumentation at the South Pole have allowed scientists to

probe the furthest reaches of time and space and unlock secrets of the

universe. Communications and computational technologies, such as

interoperable databases and informatics, are revolutionizing such fields as

biology and the social sciences. With the advent of high-speed computer-

communication networks, greater numbers of educational institutions now have

access to cutting-edge research and education tools and infrastructure.

It is useful to distinguish between the terms “tool” and “infrastructure.”

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary provides only one definition of

infrastructure: “an underlying foundation or basic framework (as of an

organization or system).”

It provides many definitions of tool, the most

applicable being “anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose.”

Given these definitions, it may be useful to assume that infrastructure not only

includes tools but also provides the basis, foundation, and/or support for the

creation of tools.

“Research infrastructure” is a term that is commonly used to describe the tools,

services, and installations that are needed for the science and engineering

(S&E) research community to function and for researchers to do their work. For

the purposes of this study, it includes: (1) hardware (tools, equipment,

instrumentation, platforms and facilities), (2) software (enabling computer

systems, libraries, databases, data analysis and data interpretation systems,

and communication networks), (3) the technical support (human or automated)

and services needed to operate the infrastructure and keep it working

effectively, and (4) the special environments and installations (such as

The National Science Board

commissioned this study in

September 2000 to assess

the current state of U.S. S&E

academic research

infrastructure, examine its

role in enabling S&E

advances, and identify

requirements for a future

capability of appropriate

quality and size to ensure

continuing U.S. S&E

leadership. This report aims

to inform the national

dialogue on S&E

infrastructure and highlight

the role of NSF as well as the

larger resource and

management strategies of

interest to Federal

policymakers in both the

executive and legislative

branches.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

buildings and research space) necessary to effectively create, deploy, access,

and use the research tools.

An increasing amount of the equipment and systems that enable the

advancement of research are large-scale, complex, and costly. “Facility” is

frequently used to describe such equipment because typically the equipment

requires special sites or buildings to house it and a dedicated staff to effectively

maintain the equipment. Increasingly, many researchers working in related

disciplines share the use of such large facilities, either on site or remotely.

“Cyberinfrastructure” is used in this report to connote a comprehensive

infrastructure based upon distributed networks of computers, information

resources, online instruments, data analysis and interpretation tools, relevant

computerized tutorials for the use of such technology, and human interfaces.

The term provides a way to discuss the infrastructure enabled by distributed

computer-communications technology in contrast to the more traditional

physical infrastructure.

There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research infrastructure is

critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in S&E. The degree to which

infrastructure is regarded as central to experimental research is indicated by

the number of Nobel Prizes awarded for the development of new instrument

technology. During the past 20 years, eight Nobel Prizes in physics were

awarded for technologies such as the electron and scanning tunneling

microscopes, laser and neutron spectroscopy, particle detectors, and the

integrated circuit.

Much has changed since the last major assessments of the academic S&E

infrastructure were conducted over a decade ago. For example:



Research questions require approaches that are increasingly

multidisciplinary and involve a broader spectrum of disciplines.

Collaboration among disciplines is increasing at an unprecedented rate.



Researchers are addressing phenomena that are beyond the temporal and

spatial limits of current measurement capabilities. Many viable research

questions can be answered only through the use of new generations of

powerful tools.



Enabled by information technology (IT), a qualitatively different and new

S&E infrastructure has evolved, delivering greater computational power,

increased access, distribution and shared use, and new research tools,

such as flexible, programmable statistics packages, many forms of

automated aids for data interpretation, and Web-accessible databases,

archives, and collaboratories. IT enables the collection and processing of

As used in this report, research infrastructure does not include the S&E workforce of researchers,

educators and other professionals, i.e. what is commonly referred to as the “human infrastructure.”

Report of the NSF Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through

Cyberinfrastructure, Dan Atkins (Chair), National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, February 2003.

Nobel e-Museum (http://www.nobel.se).

INTRODUCTION

data that could not have been collected or processed before. Increasingly,

researchers are expressing a compelling need for access to these new IT-

based research tools.



International cooperation and partnerships are increasingly used to

construct and operate large and costly research facilities. With many

international projects looming on the horizon, the U.S. Congress and the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are concerned about the

management of these complex relationships.



The reality of today’s world requires that academe secure its research

infrastructure and institute safeguards for its working environment and

critical systems. Issues are also being raised about the security of

information developed by scientists and engineers, such as genomic

databases.

These changes have created unprecedented challenges and opportunities for 21

century scientists and engineers. Consequently, the National Science Board

(NSB) determined that a fresh assessment of the national infrastructure for

academic S&E research was needed to ensure its future quality and availability.

HEHE

HARGEHARGE

HARGE

THETHE

THE

ASKASK

ASK

ORCEORCE

ORCE

In September 2000 the NSB established the Task Force on Science and

Engineering Infrastructure (INF), under the auspices of its Committee on

Programs and Plans (CPP). In summary, the INF was charged to:

“Undertake and guide an assessment of the fundamental science and

engineering infrastructure in the United States…with the aim of

informing the national dialogue on S&E infrastructure, highlighting

the role of NSF and the larger resource and management strategies of

interest to Federal policymakers in both the executive and legislative

branches. The workplan should enable an assessment of the current

status of the national S&E infrastructure, the changing needs of

science and engineering, and the requirements for a capability of

appropriate quality and size to insure continuing U.S. leadership.”

In its early organizing meetings and in discussions with the CPP, the INF

defined the scope and terms of reference for the study. Because the charge

focused on “fundamental science and engineering,” the INF decided to address

primarily the infrastructure needs of the academic research community,

including infrastructure at national laboratories or in other countries, as long

as it served the needs of academic researchers. The INF also determined that

the study should focus on “research” infrastructure, in contrast to

The complete charge to the INF is included in Appendix A.

TOWARD A MORE EFFECTIVE ROLE FOR THE U.S.

GOVERNMENT IN INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

infrastructure serving purely educational purposes, such as classrooms,

teaching laboratories, and training facilities. However, the INF recognized that

many cutting-edge research facilities are “dual use,” in that they provide

excellent opportunities for education and training as well as research. Such

infrastructure was included within this study.

Finally, while the study was concerned with the status of the entire academic

research infrastructure, the task force decided that it should provide an in-

depth analysis of NSF’s infrastructure policies, programs, and activities,

including a look at future needs, challenges and opportunities. This approach

was taken for the purpose of providing specific advice to the NSF Director and

the National Science Board. While other research and development (R&D)

agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),

Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Defense (DoD), and National

Institutes of Health (NIH) play an important role in serving the infrastructure

needs of academic researchers, detailed analyses of their infrastructure support

programs are not provided in this report.

INTRODUCTION

TRATRA

TRA

TEGYTEGY

TEGY

FORFOR

FOR

ONDUCTINGONDUCTING

ONDUCTING

THETHE

THE

TUDTUD

TUD

In responding to its charge, the task force recognized certain limits in what it

could do. Conducting a new comprehensive survey of academic institutions was

not deemed to be practical, in that it would take too much time to accomplish.

As an alternative, the INF engaged in a number of parallel activities designed to

assess the general state and direction of the academic research infrastructure

and illuminate the most promising future opportunities. The principal activities

were the following:



The INF surveyed the current literature, including reviewing and

considering the findings of more than 60 reports, studies, and planning

documents.



Representatives from other agencies, such as NASA, DoE, OMB and the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) made presentations to the

INF and responded to many questions. In addition, specialists were invited

to address the task force on relevant topics at several meetings.



The seven NSF directorates

and the Office of Polar Programs (OPP)

provided assessments of the current state of the research infrastructure

serving the S&E fields they support, as well as an assessment of future

infrastructure needs and opportunities through 2010. Senior staff in these

organizations also made presentations and supplied additional material to

the task force and frequently attended its meetings.



On numerous occasions, drafts of the report were presented to and

discussed with the NSF Director’s Policy Group, the NSB Committee on

Programs and Plans, and the full National Science Board.



The draft report was then released for public comment on the NSB/NSF

Web site. Many comments were received.

Feedback from a wide range of

sources was carefully considered in producing the final draft of this report,

which was unanimously approved by the NSB on February 6, 2003.

This literature list appears in Appendix B.

The seven directorates are Biological Sciences (BIO); Computer and Information Science and Engineering

(CISE); Education and Human Resources (EHR); Engineering (ENG); Geosciences (GEO); Mathematical and

Physical Sciences (MPS); and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE).

See Appendix C for Sources of Public Comment.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

CHAPTER TWO

HEHE

ONTEXTONTEXT

ONTEXT

FORFOR

FOR

S&E IS&E I

S&E I

NFRASTRUCTURE NFRASTRUCTURE

NFRASTRUCTURENFRASTRUCTURE

NFRASTRUCTURE

ISTIST

IST

ORYORY

ORY

ANDAND

AND

URRENTURRENT

URRENT

TUSTUS

TUS

Today S&E research is carried out in laboratories supported by government,

academe, and industry. Before 1900, however, there were relatively few

government-supported research activities. In 1862 Congress passed the Morrill

Act, which made it possible for the many new States to establish agricultural

and technical (land-grant) colleges for their citizens. Although originally started

as technical colleges, many of them grew, with additional State and Federal aid,

into large public universities with premier research programs.

Before World War II, universities were regarded as peripheral to the Federal

research enterprise. In the years between World War I and World War II, the

immigration of scientists from Europe helped to develop American superiority in

fields such as physics and engineering. World War II dramatically expanded

Federal support for academic and industrial R&D. The war presented a

scientific and engineering challenge to the United States - to provide weapons

based on advanced concepts and new discoveries that would help defeat the

enemy. Large national laboratories, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory,

were founded in the midst of the war.

The modern research university came of age after World War II when the Federal

Government decided that sustained investments in science would improve the

lives of citizens and the security of the Nation. The Federal Government

increased its support for students in higher education through programs such

as the GI bill. It also established NSF in 1950 and NASA in 1957. An infusion of

Federal funds made it possible for universities to purchase the increasingly

expensive scientific equipment and advanced instrumentation that were central

to the expansion of both the R&D and teaching functions of the university.

The advent of the cold war combined with the wartime demonstration of the

significant potential for commercial and military applications of scientific

research led to vast increases in government funding for R&D in defense-related

technologies. The result was a significant expansion of the R&D facilities of

private firms and government laboratories. Concomitantly, the Federal

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Government increased its support for academic research and the infrastructure

required to support it.

The U.S. government has been a partner with industry and academe in creating

the S&E infrastructure for many critical new industries, ranging from agriculture

to aircraft to biotechnology to computing and communications. This

infrastructure extends across the Earth’s oceans, throughout its skies, and

from pole to pole. Most of the Nation’s academic research infrastructure is now

distributed throughout nearly 700 institutions of higher education; and it

extends into more than 200 Federal laboratories and hundreds of nonprofit

research institutions. Many of these laboratories have traditions of shared use

by researchers and students from the Nation’s universities and colleges. In this

role, participating Federal laboratories have become extensions of the academic

research infrastructure.

DETECTING GRAVITY WAVES

Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatories in Hanford, Washington, and

Livingston, Louisiana, attempt to detect gravity waves reaching Earth from a host of

cataclysmic cosmic phenomena. Detection would allow scientists to observe such

phenomena as the collisions and coalescences of neutron stars and black holes,

supernovae, and other cosmic processes. The observatories’ educational activities

involve large numbers of students and teachers from grade school through doctoral

studies. CREDIT: California Institute of Technology

This history is based heavily on two sources: (1) David C. Mowery and Nathan Rosenberg, “U.S. National

Innovation System” in National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, ed. Richard R. Nelson,

Oxford University Press, 1993; and (2) Vannevar Bush, Office of Scientific Research and Development,

Science – The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research,

July 1945 (NSF 90-8).

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

Assessing the current status of the academic research infrastructure is a

difficult undertaking. Periodic surveys of universities and colleges attempt to

address various aspects of this infrastructure. But the gaps in the information

collected and analyzed leave many important questions unanswered.

EXPENDITURES FOR ACADEMIC EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTATION

A national survey of academic research instrumentation needs, conducted

nearly a decade ago, provides the latest available information on annual

expenditures for instruments with a total cost of $20,000 or more. As indicated

in Table 1, in 1993, the purchase of academic research instrumentation totaled

$1,203 million, an increase of 6 percent over the amount reported in the

previous survey in 1988. The Federal Government provided $624 million, or 52

percent of the total.

TABLE 1.

1993 EXPENDITURES FOR PURCHASE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION

$ Millions % Total

All Sources of Support

1,203 100%

Federal Sources

624 52%

NSF 213 18%

NIH 117 10%

DoD 106 9%

Other Agencies 186 15%

Non-Fe deral Sources

580 48%

Academic Institutions 292 24%

State Government 102 8%

Foundations, Bonds and Private Donations 105 9%

Industry 80 7%

SOURCE: Academic Research Instruments: Expenditures 1993, Needs 1994, NSF-96-324.

NSF provided $213 million in support of research infrastructure during 1993,

while NIH provided $117 million and DoD contributed $106 million. Of the non-

federal sources of funding, the largest single source came from the academic

institutions. A sizable contribution of $105 million came from private, non-profit

foundations, gifts, bonds, and other donations.

A more recent survey of academic R&D expenditures reveals that, in 1999,

slightly more than $1.3 billion in current funds was spent for academic research

equipment.

Such expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent

(in constant 1996 dollars) between 1983 and 1999. The share of research

Research equipment received either as part of research grants or as separate equipment grants.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

equipment expenditures funded by the Federal Government declined from 62

percent to 58 percent between 1983 and 1999. In addition, total annual R&D

equipment expenditures as a percentage of total R&D expenditures were lower

in 1999 (5 percent) than they were in 1983 (6 percent).

As a point of

comparison, during the past decade NSF support of equipment within a research

grant has declined from 6.9 percent to 4.4 percent of the total grant budget.

CAPITAL RESEARCH CONSTRUCTION

Biennual surveys of U.S. research-performing colleges and universities reveal

how these institutions fund capital research construction (costing $100,000 or

more), in contrast to research instrumentation. The Federal Government’s

contribution to construction funds at the Nation’s research-performing colleges

and universities has varied over the past decade. In 1986-87 it accounted for 6

percent of total funds for new construction and repair/renovation of research

facilities at public and private universities and colleges. This percentage

increased steadily to 14.1 percent in 1992-93 and then declined to 8.8 percent

in 1996-97. Recent data indicate this percentage declined to 6.2 percent in

1998-99.

Table 2 indicates that, in 1996-97, research-performing institutions derived

their S&E capital projects funds from three major sources: the Federal

Government, State and local governments, and other institutional resources

(consisting of private donations, institutional funds, tax-exempt bonds, and

other sources).

TABLE 2.

SOURCES OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT AND REPAIR/RENOVATE S&E RESEARCH SPACE:

1996-97

Source of Funds

Percent of fun ds for

new constru ction

Percent of fun ds for

repair/renovation

Federal Government 8.7% 9.1%

State/Local Government 31.1% 25.5%

Other Institutional Resources 60.2% 65.4%

TOTAL

100% 100%

TOTAL COST

$3.1 billion $1.3 billion

NOTE: Only projects costing $100,000 or more

SOURCE: National Science Foundation/SRS, 1998 Survey of Scientific and Engineering

Research Facilities at Colleges and Universities.

The Federal Government directly accounted for 8.7 percent of all new

construction funds ($271 million) and 9.1 percent ($121 million) of all repair/

renovation funds. Additionally, some Federal funding was provided through

NSF, Academic Science and Engineering R&D Expenditures: Fiscal Year 1999, Detailed Statistical

Tables, NSF 01-329; and NSF, unpublished tabulations.

NSF Enterprise Information System (NSF proprietary data system).

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2002, NSB 02-1, January 2002.

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

indirect cost recovery on grants and/or contracts from the Federal Government.

These overhead payments are used to defray the indirect costs of conducting

federally funded research and are counted as institutional funding.

Another NSF survey representing 580 research-performing institutions

provides some information on the current amount, distribution and condition of

academic research space, which includes laboratories, facilities, and major

equipment costing at least $1 million. As Table 3 indicates, in 1988 there were

112 million net assignable square feet (NASF) of S&E research space. By 2001

the NASF had increased by 38 percent to 155 million NASF.

TABLE 3.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH SPACE BY S&E FIELD, 1988-2001

Field

Net assignable square feet

(NASF) in millions

% NASF

reported as

adequate

% Additional

NASF

needed

1988 1992 1996 1999 2001 2001 2001

All fields

Agricultural sciences

Biological sciences

Computer sciences

Earth, atmospheric, and

ocean sciences

Engineering

Medical sciences

Physical sciences &

mathematics

Psychology & social

sciences

Other sciences

112 122 136 150 155

18 20 22 25 27

24 28 30 32 33

1 2 2 2 2

6 7 7 8 8

16 18 22 25 26

19 22 25 27 28

17 17 19 20 20

6 6 7 9 9

4 2 2 3 3

29% 27%

30% 11%

27% 32%

27% 109%

38% 26%

23% 26%

23% 34%

33% 25%

38% 32%

72% 18%

NOTE: Components may not add to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: Survey of Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities, 2001, NSF/SRS.

Doctorate-granting institutions represented 95 percent of the space, with the

top 100 institutions having 71 percent and minority-serving institutions having

5 percent. In addition, 71 percent of institutions surveyed reported inadequate

research space, while 51 percent reported a deficit of greater than 25 percent.

The greatest deficit was reported by computer sciences, with only 27 percent of

the space reported as adequate, and more than double the current space

required to make up the perceived deficit. To meet their current research

commitments, the research-performing institutions reported that they needed

an additional 40 million NASF of S&E research space or 27 percent more than

they had.

Maintaining the academic research infrastructure in a modern and effective

state over the past decade has been especially challenging because of the

increasing cost to construct and maintain research facilities and the

NSF/SRS, Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities, 2001, Detailed Statistical Tables. NSF 02-307, 2002.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

concomitant expansion of the research enterprise, with substantially greater

numbers of faculty and students engaged in S&E research.

The problem is exacerbated by the recurrent Federal funding of research below

full economic cost, which has made it difficult for academic institutions to set

aside sufficient funds for infrastructure maintenance and replacement. A recent

RAND study estimated that the true cost of facilities and administration (F&A)

for research projects is about 31 percent of the total Federal grant. Because of

limits placed on Federal F&A rates, the share that the Federal Government

actually pays is between 24 percent and 28 percent. This share amounts to

between $0.7 billion and $1.5 billion in annual costs that are not reimbursed.

Moreover, the infrastructure component in negotiated F&A rates has increased

since the late 1980s, from under 6 percent in 1988 to almost 9 percent in 1999.

UNMET NEEDS

Determining what colleges and universities need for S&E infrastructure is a

difficult and complex task. Nevertheless, over the past decade a number of

diverse studies and reports have charted a growing gap between the academic

research infrastructure that is needed and the infrastructure provided. For

example:



A 1995 study by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)

indicated that the academic research infrastructure in the U.S. is in need

of significant renewal, conservatively estimating the facilities and

instrumentation needed to make up the deficit at $8.7 billion.



In 1998, an NSF survey estimated costs for deferred capital projects to

construct, repair, or renovate academic research facilities at $11.4 billion,

including $7.0 billion to construct new facilities and $4.4 billion to repair/

renovate existing facilities.



A 2001 report to the Director of NIH estimated that $5.6 billion was

required to address inadequate and/or outdated biomedical research

infrastructure. The report recommended new funds for NIH facility

improvement grants in FY 2002, a Federal loan guarantee program to

support facility construction and renovation, and the removal of arbitrary

caps of the Federal F&A rate.



In 2001, the Director of NASA reported a $900 million construction backlog

and said that $2 billion more was needed to revitalize and modernize

research infrastructure.

The number of doctoral-level academic researchers increased from 82,300 in 1973 to 150,100 in 1993,

and to 168,100 in 1999. S&E Indicators 2002, 5-23.

Charles A. Goldman and T. Williams, Paying for University Research Facilities and Administration, RAND,

(MR-1135-1-OSTP), Washington, D.C., 2000.

National Science and Technology Council, Final Report on Academic Research Infrastructure: A Federal

Plan for Renewal, Washington D.C., March 17, 1995.

NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and

Universities, 1998, NSF-01-301, October 2000.

NIH Working Group on Construction of Research Facilities, A Report to the Advisory Committee of the

Director, National Institutes of Health, July 6, 2001.

Daniel S. Goldin, Aerospace Daily, October 17, 2001.

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE



A recent study indicated that DoE’s Office of Science laboratories and

facilities, many of which are operated by universities, are aging and in

disrepair – over 60 percent of the space is more than 30 years old. A DoE

strategic plan identified more than $2 billion of needed capital investment

projects over the next 10 years (FY 2002 through FY 2011).



In FY 2001 an informal survey of NSF directorates and the OPP estimated

that future academic S&E infrastructure needs through 2010 would cost an

additional $18 billion.



An NSF blue-ribbon advisory panel recently estimated that an additional

$850 million per year in cyberinfrastructure would be needed to sustain the

ongoing revolution in S&E.

ENGINEERING LIVING TISSUE

At Georgia Tech/Emory Center

for the Engineering of Living

Tissues, an NSF Engineering

Research Center, graduate

students examine a sample in a

bioreactor for potential use in

engineering cartilage tissue.

Ultimately this work will lead

to biological (non-synthetic)

devices for organ and tissue

replacement, repair, and

therapeutic uses in the human

body. CREDIT: Georgia Tech/

Emory Center for Engineering

of Living Tissue

While these surveys and studies provide a rough measure of the magnitude of

the problem, they say little about the cost of lost S&E opportunities. In a

number of critical research fields, the lack of quality infrastructure is limiting

S&E progress. For example:



The lack of long-term stable support for “wetware” archives is preventing

more rapid advances in post-genomic discoveries.



The lack of a large-scale network infrastructure in which the next

generation of secure network protocols and architectures could be

developed and tested will hamper any significant deployment of these

applications.

U.S. Department of Energy, Infrastructure Frontier: A Quick Look Survey of the Office of Science

Laboratory Infrastructure, April 2001.

Unpublished internal survey of NSF directorates.

Report of the NSF Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure, Daniel E. Atkins (Chair), Revolutionizing

Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure, National Science Foundation, February 2003.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION



The lack of support for new social science surveys, especially the collection

of data in foreign countries, is limiting our scientific understanding of

political events, human opinion and behavior.



The lack of synchrotron radiation facilities with orders-of-magnitude

increase in luminosity is limiting our ability to extend the frontiers in such

areas as structural biology, genomics, proteomics, materials, and

nanoscience.

HEHE

MPORMPOR

MPOR

ANCEANCE

ANCE

OFOF

ARAR

TNERSHIPSTNERSHIPS

TNERSHIPS

The international dimensions of research and education are increasingly

essential to U.S. science and engineering. As S&E infrastructure projects grow

in size, cost, and complexity, collaboration and partnerships are increasingly

required to enable them. These partnerships increase both the quality of the

research enterprise and its impact on the economy and society.

The very nature of the S&E enterprise is global, often requiring access to

geographically dispersed materials, phenomena, and expertise, as well as

collaborative logistical support. It also requires open and timely communication,

sharing, and validation of findings, data, and data analysis procedures. Projects

in areas such as global change, genomics, astronomy, space exploration, and

high-energy physics have a global reach and often require expertise and

resources that no single country possesses. Further, the increasing cost of

large-scale facilities often requires nations to share the expense.

LISTENING TO THE UNIVERSE

The Atacama Large

Millimeter Array (ALMA)

will be the world’s most

sensitive, highest

resolution millimeter

wavelength radio

telescope. It will

consist of sixty-four 12-

meter diameter reflector

antennas built on a

high (5000 meters) site

near the village of San

Pedro de Atacama, Chile, by an international partnership. The U.S. side of

the project is run by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, operated by

Associated Universities, Inc. under cooperative agreement with NSF. The

international partners include Canada and the European Southern

Observatory. CREDIT: European Southern Observatory

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

INTO THE LOOKING GLASS

NSF provides the

world’s astronomers

with two identical 8-

meter telescopes in

Hawaii and Chile,

known as the Gemini

Observatory. Shown

here is the mirror of

the telescope at

Mauna Kea, Hawaii.

The telescope is

optimized for observa-

tions in infrared

light. The thin mirror

is sufficiently flexible that its shape can be continuously adjusted to correct for

distortion caused by the atmosphere. The observatory is an international collabora-

tion with the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil.

CREDIT: NSF/The Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy/National

Optical Astronomy Observatories

The number of government-funded infrastructure projects that entail

international collaboration has increased steadily over the last decade. For

example, NSF currently supports a substantial and growing number of projects

with international partnering. Among them are the twin Gemini Telescopes, the

Large Hadron Collider, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory at the South Pole, the

Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, the Ocean Drilling

Program, and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array.

In the future, a growing number of large infrastructure projects will be carried

out through international collaborations and partnerships. The Internet, the

World Wide Web, and other large distributed and networked databases will

facilitate this trend by channeling new technologies, researchers, users, and

resources from around the globe.

All large future infrastructure projects should be considered from the

perspective of potential international partnering, or at a minimum of close

cooperation regarding competing national-scale projects. An additional challenge

is maintaining interest in and political support for long-term international

projects. Any absence of follow through on high-profile projects could increase

the danger of the U.S. becoming known as an unreliable international partner.

Interagency coordination of large infrastructure projects is also extremely

important. For example, successful management of the U.S. astronomy and

astrophysics research enterprise requires close coordination among NASA, NSF,

DoD, DoE and many private and State-supported facilities. Likewise,

NSB, Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S. Government in International Science and Engineering,

NSB-01-187. November 2001.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

SCIENCE AT THE SOUTH POLE

At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, the new station that is still

under construction stands beside the almost-buried geodesic dome of the

old station. The station will support 150 people and research ranging from

astrophysics to microbiology and climatology. CREDIT: NSF/USAP photo by

SSGT Lee Harshman, U.S. Air Force, February 2003

implementation of the U.S. polar research program, which NSF leads, requires

the coordination of many Federal agencies and nations. University access to the

facilities of many of the national laboratories has been facilitated through

interagency agreements. There are a number of models for effective interagency

coordination, such as committees and subcommittees of the White House-led

NSTC.

In the fields of high-energy and nuclear physics, NSF and DoE have developed

an effective scheme that facilitates interagency coordination while

simultaneously obtaining outside expert advice. The High Energy Physics

Advisory Panel (HEPAP), supported by NSF and DoE, gives advice to the agencies

on research priorities, funding levels, and balance, and provides a forum for

DoE-NSF joint strategic planning. This scheme has facilitated joint DoE-NSF

infrastructure projects. For example, the HEPAP-backed plan for U.S.

participation in the European Large Hadron Collider has been credited with

making that arrangement succeed.

Partnerships have also played an important role in developing the genomics

infrastructure. For example, the Human Genome Project, the Arabidopsis

Genome Project, and the International Rice Sequencing Project have made vast

amounts of genomic information available to researchers in the life sciences

and other fields. Each of these projects was accomplished through a strong

network of interagency and international partners.

Committee on the Organization and Management of Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, National

Research Council, U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program, August 2001.

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

COLLIDING PARTICLES

The Large Hadron Collider,

which is under construction at

CERN, is expected to begin

operating in 2005. NSF

contributed to the construction

of two high-energy particle

accelerators: a large angle

spectrometer and the compact

muon solenoid. There is

preliminary experimental

evidence that the Higgs particle,

the key to understanding mass,

can be detected with the

collider. CREDIT: Large Hadron

Collider, European Organization

for Nuclear Research (CERN)

Partnerships with the private sector also play an important role in facilitating

the construction and operation of S&E infrastructure. For example, industrial

firms have funded much of the equipment available in the Engineering Research

Centers and the National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN). Public-

private sector partnerships have also helped to enable the Internet, the

Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI), and the

TeraGrid Project.

HEHE

EXTEXT

EXT

IMENSIONIMENSION

IMENSION

While there have been many significant breakthroughs in infrastructure

development over the last decade, nothing has come close to matching the

impact of IT and microelectronics. The rapid advances in IT have dramatically

changed the way S&E information is gathered, stored, analyzed, presented, and

communicated. These changes have led to a qualitative, as well as quantitative,

change in the way research is performed. Instead of just doing the “old things”

cheaper and faster, innovations in information, sensing, and communications

are creating new, unanticipated activities, analysis, and knowledge. For

example:



Simulation of detailed physical phenomena - from subatomic to galactic

and all levels in between - is possible; these simulations reveal new

understanding of the world, e.g. protein folding and shape, weather, and

galaxy formation. Databases and simulations also permit social and

behavioral processes research to be conducted in new ways with greater

objectivity and finer granularity than ever before.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION



Researchers used to collect and analyze data from their own experiments

and laboratories. Now, they can access results in shared archives, such as

the protein data bank, and conduct research that utilizes information from

vast networked data resources.



Automated data analysis procedures of various kinds have been critical to

the rapid development of genomics, climate research, astronomy, and other

areas and will certainly play an even greater role with accumulation of

ever-larger databases.



Low-cost sensors, nano-sensors, and high-resolution imaging enable new,

detailed data acquisition and analysis across the sciences and engineering

- for environmental research, genomics, applications for health, and many

other areas.



The development of advanced robotics, including autonomous underwater

vehicles and robotic aircraft, allows data collection from otherwise

inaccessible locations, such as under polar ice. Advanced instrumentation

makes it possible to adapt and revise a measuring protocol depending on

the data being collected.

Research tools and facilities increasingly include digital computing capabilities.

For example, telescopes now produce bits from control panels rather than

photographs. Particle accelerators, gene sequencers, seismic sensors, and many

other modern S&E tools also produce information bits. As with IT systems

generally, these tools depend heavily on hardware and software.

The exponential growth in computing power, communication bandwidth, and

data storage capacity will continue for the next decade. Currently, the U.S.

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) has as its target the

development of machines with 100 teraflop/second capabilities

by 2005. Soon

many researchers will be able to work in the “peta” (10

) range.

IT drivers -

smaller, cheaper, and faster - will enable researchers in the near future to:



Establish shared virtual and augmented reality environments independent

of geographical distances between participants and the supporting data and

computing systems.



Integrate massive data sets, digital libraries, models, and analytical tools

from many sources.



Visualize, simulate, and model complex systems such as living cells and

organisms, geological phenomena, and social structures.

With the advent of networking, information, computing, and communications

technologies, the time is approaching when the entire scientific community will

have access to these frontier instruments and infrastructure. Many applications

A teraflop is a measure of a computer’s speed and can be expressed as a trillion floating-point operations

per second.

UK Office of Science and Technology, Large Facilities Strategic Road Map, 2001.

THE CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE

have been and are being developed that take advantage of network

infrastructure, such as research collaboratories, interactive distributed

simulations, virtual reality platforms, control of remote instruments, field work

and experiments, access to and visualization of large data sets,

and distance

learning (via connection to infrastructure sites).

Advances in computational techniques have already radically altered the

research landscape in many S&E communities. For example, the biological

sciences are undergoing a profound revolution, based largely on the enormous

amount of data resulting from the determination of complete genomes.

Genomics is now pervading all of biology and is helping to catalyze an

integration of biology with other scientific and engineering fields. In order to

fully understand the vast amount of genomic information available and apply it

to improve the environment, nutritional quality of food, and human and animal

health and welfare, new and improved computational and analytical tools and

techniques must be developed, and the next generation of scientists and

engineers must be trained to use them. Central to genomic sequencing and

analysis is access to high-speed computers to store and analyze the enormous

amount of data. Automated methods for model search, classification, structure

matching, and model estimation and evaluation already have an essential role

in genomics and in other complex, data-intensive domains, and should come to

play a larger role in the future.

The Nation’s IT capability has acted like adrenaline to all of S&E. The next step

is to build the most advanced research computing infrastructure while

simultaneously broadening its accessibility. NSF is presently working toward

enabling such a distributed, leading-edge computational capability.

Extraordinary advances in the capacity for visualization, simulation, data

analysis and interpretation, and robust handling of enormous sets of data are

already underway in the first decade of the 21st century. Computational

resources, both hardware and software, must be sufficiently large, sufficiently

available, and, especially, sufficiently flexible to accommodate unanticipated

scientific and engineering demands and applications over the next few decades.

Examples of large data sets include large genomic databases, data gathered from global observations

systems, seismic networks, automated physical science instruments, and social science databases.

R.H. Rich, The Role of the National Science Foundation in Supporting Advanced Network Infrastructure:

Views of the Research Community, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,

D.C., July 26, 1999.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

CHAPTER THREE

HEHE

OLEOLE

OLE

OFOF

THETHE

THE

TIONALTIONAL

TIONAL

CIENCECIENCE

CIENCE

OUNDOUND

OUND

TIONTION

TION

NSF LNSF L

NSF L

EADERSHIPEADERSHIP

EADERSHIP

OLEOLE

OLE

Among Federal agencies, NSF is a leader in providing the academic research

community with access to forefront instrumentation and facilities. Its history

and mission confer this role upon it. NSF is the only agency charged to broadly

“promote the progress of science; to advance the National health, prosperity,

and welfare; to secure the National defense; and for other purposes.”

While

other agencies support S&E infrastructure needed to accomplish their specific

missions, only NSF has the broad responsibility to see that the academic

research community continues to have access to forefront instrumentation and

facilities, to provide the needed research support to utilize them effectively, and

to provide timely upgrades to this infrastructure.

Because of its unique responsibilities and mission, NSF must address issues

and adopt strategies that are different from those of other agencies. For

example, application mission agencies, such as DoD and DoE, focus primarily

on what is enabled by a facility. NSF’s infrastructure investments must also

consider other issues, such as the educational impacts of the facility on

designers, operators, researchers, and students; the balance of support across

disciplines and fields; and the development of next-generation instruments.

This broad, integrated strategy is reflected in NSF’s three strategic goals,

expressed here as outcomes:

People - A diverse, internationally competitive and globally engaged

workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens

Ideas - Discovery across the frontiers of S&E, connected to learning,

innovation, and service to society

Tools - Broadly accessible, state-of-the-art and shared research and

education tools

These goals are mutually supportive and each is essential to ensure the health

of the U.S. S&E enterprise. For example, advances in infrastructure go hand-in-

hand with scientific progress and workforce development. Research discoveries

National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-507).

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

create the need for new infrastructure and underpin the development of new

infrastructure technologies. In turn, infrastructure developments open up new

research vistas and help to sustain S&E at the cutting edge. The development of

new infrastructure also has an enormous impact on the education of students

who will be the next generation of leaders in S&E.

Except for the South Pole Station and the other Antarctic Program facilities,

NSF does not directly construct or operate the facilities it supports. Typically,

NSF makes awards to external entities, primarily universities, consortia of

universities, or nonprofit organizations, to undertake construction,

management, and operation of facilities. All infrastructure projects are selected

for funding through a competitive and transparent merit review process. NSF

retains responsibility for overseeing the development, management and

successful performance of the projects. This approach provides the flexibility to

adjust to changes in science and technology while providing accountability

through efficient and cost-effective management and oversight. An essential

added benefit of NSF’s model is the opportunity to train young scientists and

engineers by engaging them directly in planning, construction, and operation of

major facilities and large-scale instrumentation.

Throughout its 50-year history, NSF has enjoyed an extraordinarily successful

track record in providing state-of-the-art facilities for S&E research and

education. NSF management and oversight have not only enabled the

establishment of unique national assets, but have also ensured that they serve

the S&E communities and the discovery process as intended. Some of the areas

where NSF plays a major Federal funding role are:



Atmospheric and climate change research



Digital libraries for S&E



Biocomplexity and biodiversity research



Exploration of the Earth’s mantle



Gravitational physics



High-performance computing and advanced networking



Machine learning and statistics



Cognitive psychology



Ground-based astronomy



Materials research



Oceanography



Plant genomics



Polar research



Seismology and earthquake engineering

STST

ABLISHINGABLISHING

ABLISHING

RIORITIESRIORITIES

RIORITIES

FORFOR

FOR

ARGEARGE

ARGE

OJECTSOJECTS

OJECTS

In identifying new facility construction projects, the S&E community, in

consultation with NSF, develops ideas, considers alternatives, explores

partnerships, and develops cost and timeline estimates. By the time a proposal

is submitted to NSF, these issues have been thoroughly examined.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Upon receipt by NSF, large facility proposals are first subjected to rigorous

external peer review, focusing on the criteria of intellectual merit and the broad

(probable) impacts of the project. Only the highest rated proposals - i.e. those

that are rated outstanding on both criteria - survive this process and are

recommended to a high-level review panel composed of the Assistant Directors

and office heads, serving as stewards for their fields and chosen for their

breadth of understanding, and chaired by the Deputy Director.

WHEN THE EARTH SHAKES

The George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation is a new

model for scientific research that will radically change engineering to minimize

earthquake damage, such as the damage pictured here. This Web-interface

technology will allow researchers anywhere in the world to operate the equipment

and observe experiments of earthquake simulations and related effects. The first test

used a shake table to vibrate a model bridge with 100 sensors attached that streamed

video and data to engineers. CREDIT: U.S. Geological Survey

The review panel uses a two-stage process. First, it selects the new start

projects it will recommend to the Director for future NSF support, based on a

discussion of the merits of the science within the context of all sciences that

NSF supports. Second, it places these recommended new-start projects in

priority order.

In selecting projects for future support, the panel considers the following

criteria:



Significance of the opportunity to enable frontier research and education.



Degree of support within the relevant S&E communities.



Readiness of project, in terms of feasibility, engineering cost-effectiveness,

interagency and international partnerships, and management.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Using these criteria, projects that are not highly rated are returned to the

initiating directorates and may be reconsidered at a future time. Highly rated

projects are then placed in priority order by the panel. This process is

conducted in consultation with the NSF Director. The review panel and the

Director use the following criteria to determine the priority order of the projects:



How “transformative” is the project? Will it change the way research is

conducted or change fundamental S&E concepts/research frontiers?



How great are the benefits of the project? How many researchers,

educators and students will it enable? Does it broadly serve many

disciplines?



How pressing is the need? Is there a window of opportunity? Are there

interagency and international commitments that must be met?

These criteria are not assigned relative weights because each project has its

own unique attributes and circumstances. For example, timeliness may be

crucial for one project and relatively unimportant for another. Additionally, the

Director must weigh the impact of a proposed facility on the balance between

scientific fields, the importance of the project with respect to national priorities,

and possible societal benefits.

After considering the strength and substance of the panel’s recommendations,

the balance among various fields and disciplines, and other factors, the Director

selects the candidate projects to bring before the NSB for consideration. The

NSB reviews individual projects on their merits and authorizes the Foundation

MATRIX OF THE FUTURE

The Extensible Terascale Facility is a scalable, distributed, heterogeneous grid

computing-communication-information system. Scheduled for commissioning in the

fall of 2004, the facility will provide for the seamless integration of high-end

computing platforms, large archival science and engineering data resources, cutting-

edge visualization facilities, and research-enabling instruments and sensors.

CREDIT: Donna Cox, National Center for Computing Applications

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

to pursue the inclusion of selected projects in future budget requests. In

August the Director presents the priorities, including a discussion of the

rationale for the priority order, to the NSB, as part of the budget process. The

NSB reviews the list and either approves or argues the order of priority. As part

of its budget submission, NSF presents this rank-ordered list of projects to

OMB. Finally, NSF submits a prioritized list of projects to Congress as part of

its budget submission.

URRENTURRENT

URRENT

OGRAMSOGRAMS

OGRAMS

ANDAND

AND

TRATRA

TRA

TEGIESTEGIES

TEGIES

Table 4 indicates that the FY 2003 budget estimate for facilities and other Tools

totaled $1,122 million, representing about 22.3 percent of the overall NSF

budget request. Over the past few years this number has ranged from 22 percent

to 27 percent. The FY 2004 budget request for Tools is $1,340 million, which is

about 24.5 percent of the total.

In the category of Research Resources, a range of activities are supported,

including multiuser instrumentation; the development of instruments with new

capabilities, improved resolution or sensitivity; upgrades to field stations and

marine laboratories; support of living stock collections; facility-related

instrument development and operation; and the support and development of

databases and informatics tools and techniques. Not included in Table 4 are

more than 300 NSF-supported research centers receiving a total of $372 million

in NSF support and leveraging additional external support of $319 million

(mostly university and industrial matching).

UNDERSTANDING CELL BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

An undergraduate at the University of

Georgia uses cryo-transmission electron

microscopy to obtain atomic-level structural

information about the complex

macromolecular assemblies that govern

fundamental cell biological processes.

CREDIT: Mark A. Farmer, Director, Center

for Ultrastructural Research, University of

Georgia

Although NSF research centers are part People, part Ideas and part Tools, for budget convenience they

are classified in the Ideas category.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

TABLE 4.

NSF INVESTMENT IN TOOLS, FY 2002-2004

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2002

Actual

FY 2003

Estimate

FY 2004

Estimate

Change FY 2004/2003

Amount Percent

Facilities

Academic Research Fleet

Antarctic Facilities and Operations

Cornell Electron Storage Ring

Gemini

Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology

Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory

Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction

National Astronomy Facilities

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

Ocean Drilling Program/Integrated Ocean Drilling Program

Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure

Other Facilities

61.90

123.38

19.49

12.50

12.93

24.00

122.41

88.36

77.59

24.97

14.81

31.50

75.27

42.43

62.00

128.70

19.49

12.60

13.10

29.50

136.28

84.33

74.87

24.00

14.70

30.00

71.49

63.54

65.00

144.29

21.00

14.20

14.10

29.00

226.33

93.43

80.09

24.50

15.20

15.40

76.49

87.29

3.00

15.59

1.51

1.60

1.00

-0.50

90.05

9.10

5.22

0.50

-14.60

5.00

23.75

4.8%

12.1%

7.7%

12.7%

7.6%

-1.7%

66.1%

10.8%

7.0%

2.1%

3.4%

-48.7%

7.0%

37.4%

Other Tools

Advanced Networking Infrastructure

Cyberinfrastructure

Major Research Instrumentation

National High Field Mass Spectrometry Facility

National STEM Digital Library

Polar Logistics

Research Resources

Science Resources Statistics

Science and Technology Policy Institute

47.60

0.00

75.89

1.06

27.07

97.85

111.23

16.18

3.99

46.62

0.00

54.00

0.99

27.50

94.07

106.36

23.36

4.00

46.42

20.00

90.00

0.00

23.80

97.07

128.85

24.47

4.00

-0.20

20.00

36.00

-0.99

-3.70

3.00

22.49

1.11

0.00

-0.40%

N/A

66.7%

100.0%

-13.5%

3.2%

21.1%

4.8%

0.0%

Total, Tools Support $1,112.41 $1,121.50 $1,340.93 $ 219.43 19.6%

Funding levels for MREFC projects in this table include initial support for operations and maintenance

funded through R&RA as well as construction, acquisition and commissioning costs funded through

MREFC.

Other Facilities includes support for the National Nanofabrication Users Network through FY 2003, the

National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network in FY 2004, and other physics, materials research,

ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and Earth sciences facilities.

Support for the National High Field Mass Spectrometry Facility will be integrated into the National High

Magnetic Field Laboratory in FY 2004.

NSF centers have been outstanding catalysts for the acquisition and deployment

of major infrastructure investments. For example, many of the Engineering

Research Centers and Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers

acquire, maintain and update extensive shared facilities and testbeds, often

with major equipment donations from industry partners. These facilities often

serve as shared campus-wide, statewide, or regional facilities.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Table 5 contains data on NSF’s investment in Tools by major activity: the seven

NSF directorates, the OPP, Integrative Activities (IA), and the Major Research

Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account.

TABLE 5.

NSF TOOLS EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR ACTIVITY, FY 1998-2002

(Dollars in Millions)

Budget Activity

FY 1998

Tools

FY 2002

Tools

Change

2002/1998

FY 2002

Total Budget

Tools as

% of Total

BIO

CISE

ENG

GEO

MPS

SBE

OPP

EHR

MREFC

OTHER

104

176

146

163

142

217

223

221

115

37%

50%

23%

53%

267%

36%

51%

47%

510

515

471

610

920

184

301

106

866

115

185

10%

28%

36%

24%

18%

73%

75%

100%

NSF TOTAL

$783 $1,112 46% $4,783 23%

BIO = Biological Sciences; CISE = Computer and Information Science and Engineering;

ENG = Engineering; GEO = Geosciences; MPS = Mathematical and Physical Sciences;

SBE = Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; OPP = Office of Polar Programs;

IA = Integrative Activities; EHR = Education and Human Resources.

Other budget items include Salaries and Office of Inspector General.

Numbers may not add due to rounding.

BIO invests about 10 percent of its annual budget in the Tools category.

Heretofore, the typical infrastructure investments have been in small- to

medium-size instrumentation, such as mass spectrometers, electron

microscopes, and genomic sequencers, and in stock centers, natural history

collections, and searchable biological databases. The biological sciences are

undergoing a profound revolution, based largely on the use of genomics data and

IT advances. Hence, there are indications that BIO’s future infrastructure

requirements will increase substantially. (The future needs and opportunities of

each directorate are discussed in the next section of the report.)

CISE supplies the critical infrastructure needs not only for computer S&E

research, but also for other sciences and engineering that require high-end

computational and communications capabilities. Its infrastructure investment

is large - 28 percent of its budget - and growing rapidly. Much of the

infrastructure budget provides support for two major projects: the Terascale

Computing Systems (TCS) and the Partnerships for Advanced Computational

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Infrastructure (PACI). Additionally, CISE currently provides support for small- to

medium-end activities for more than 200 research universities. Resources range

over the breadth of the cyberinfrastructure and include computational

resources, networking testbeds, software and data repositories, and

instruments.

ENG direct investment in Tools is small - only 1 percent of its budget - largely

composed of support for the NNUN. However, this direct investment is

augmented by ENG’s equipment investment through research grants and at

NSF-supported centers, such as the Engineering Research Centers and the

Earthquake Engineering Research Centers. These centers also attract a

considerable investment in industry matching funds. ENG also supports the

Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), which is funded from

the MREFC Account.

EHR’s current infrastructure consists of the people, computing equipment and

networks, physical facilities, instrumentation, and other components that drive

educational excellence and support the integration of research with education.

In FY 2002, EHR will invest nearly $25 million in the National Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Digital Library (NSDL), a

national resource that will aid researchers and educators in the development

and dissemination of teaching and learning resources.

FLYING LABORATORIES

Representative research aircraft platforms operated by several agencies, including a

Naval Research Laboratory P-3 that carries an NSF-supported tail-mounted Doppler

radar, the NSF C-130 flying laboratory, two National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration P-3 hurricane surveillance and research aircraft, a Department of

Energy Citation used for terrestrial remote sensing, and a National Aeronautics and

Space Administration ER-2 high-altitude research aircraft. CREDIT: Cheryl Yubas,

Suborbital Program Manager, Code YS, NASA

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

GEO spends approximately 36 percent of its total budget on infrastructure and

also relies heavily on the MREFC Account. Because of its inherently

observational nature, cutting-edge research in the geosciences requires a vast

range of capabilities and diverse instrumentation, including ships and aircraft,

ground-based observatories, laboratory and experimental analysis instruments,

computing capabilities, and real-time data and communication systems.

MPS currently invests about 24 percent of its overall budget annually in the

Tools category, most of which goes to the larger facilities. Like GEO, the

disciplines represented by MPS require extensive observational facilities and

other infrastructure. In addition, MPS facilities rely heavily on support from the

NSF-wide MREFC Account.

SBE invests about 18 percent of its budget in infrastructure, composed chiefly of

distributed facilities that do not require large construction. This infrastructure

includes new data collections that serve a broad range of scholars; digital

libraries, including data archives; shared facilities that enable new data to be

collected; and centers that promote the development of new approaches in a

field.

OPP supports research across all disciplines in the two polar regions, ranging

from archaeology and astrophysics to biology and space weather. OPP invests

73 percent of its budget in Tools and supports large scientific instruments;

laboratories; facilities for housing, health and safety, food service, and

sanitation; satellite communications; transportation (including fixed-wing

aircraft, helicopters, and research ships); and data and database management,

all requiring significant investment in ongoing maintenance and operations in

an unforgiving climate. This infrastructure is provided for the benefit of all the

research programs supported by NSF’s directorates, as well as the Federal

mission agencies and other institutional partners.

DETECTING WITH ICECUBE

The IceCube project

will be a neutrino

observatory that

uses one cubic

kilometer of the

Antarctic ice sheet

as a detector. It will

provide a hitherto

unseen view of the

most active and

energetic

astrophysical

objects.

CREDIT: University

of Wisconsin

(Madison) IceCube

Project Office

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NSF-wide Infrastructure Programs

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account:

NSF established the MREFC Account in 1995 to better manage the funding of

large facility projects, such as accelerators, telescopes, research vessels, and

aircraft, all of which require peak funding over a relatively short period of time.

Previously, such projects were supported within NSF’s Research and Related

Activities (R&RA) Account. The MREFC Account supports facility projects that

provide unique research and education capabilities at the cutting edge of S&E,

with costs ranging from several tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. It

provides funding for acquisition, construction, and commissioning in contrast to

other activities, such as planning, design and development, and operations and

maintenance, which are funded from the R&RA Account.

DRILLING BENEATH THE SEA

The Ocean Drilling Program is an international partnership of scientists and

research institutions organized to explore the evolution and structure of Earth as

recorded in the ocean basins. The JOIDES Resolution is the drill ship used to

collect geologic samples from the floor of the deep ocean basins through rotary

coring and hydraulic piston coring. Undergraduate and graduate students

participate in drilling expeditions with some of the world’s leading scientists.

CREDIT: Ocean Drilling Program, www-odp.tamu.edu/resolutn.html

Table 6 indicates the projects supported by the MREFC Account since its

inception. Included are several projects approved by the NSB but still awaiting

funding.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

TABLE 6.

PROJECTS SUPPORTED BY THE MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

CONSTRUCTION (MREFC) ACCOUNT

Completed Projects:



Gemini Observatory



Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)



Polar Support Aircraft Upgrades

Currently Being Funded



Atacama Large Millimeter Array/Millimeter Array (ALMA/MMA)



EarthScope



High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental

Research (HIAPER)



IceCube Neutrino Detector



Large Hadron Collider (LHC)



Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)



South Pole Station: Safety Project and Modernization



Terascale Computing Systems

NSB Approved but Not Yet Funded



National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)



Ocean Observatories



Rare Symmetry Violating Processes (RSVP)



Scientific Ocean Drilling

While the MREFC model has served NSF well, there are a number of issues that

NSF is currently examining in its effort to provide the best support for large

facility projects, such as:



How large should a project be before it can be considered for MREFC

funding?



When should large infrastructure projects be supported within directorate

budgets versus the MREFC Account?



What costs should be charged to the MREFC Account versus the R&RA

Account?



How should budget priorities be established across different fields and

disciplines?



How should these large projects be managed?

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI): The MRI program supports

instrumentation having a total cost ranging from $100,000 to $2 million. It

seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and foster the

integration of research and education by providing instrumentation for research-

intensive learning environments. In FY 2004 NSF has requested $90 million for

this program to support the acquisition and development of research

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

instrumentation for academic institutions.

This amount falls short of meeting

the real needs and opportunities, based on the survey of directorate needs and

the amount of MRI proposals received in FY 2002.

Small Instrumentation in Research Grants: In the past decade, NSF’s strong

support for individual investigator (and small groups of investigators) research

has held steady. However, equipment within a research grant has declined from

6.9 percent to 4.4 percent of the total grant budget. This decline is partly

because the average size of NSF research grants has not kept pace with

inflation. Other issues include the increasing cost of new instruments, the

need to replace large bulky instruments with smaller and faster instruments,

and most of all, the need for computers and interfaces for the acquisition of

large data sets from midrange or larger centers or sites. The potential for remote

access to and operation of instruments at larger centers or sites is a key aspect

of future investments at this level. In addition to increased funding for special

programs, such as MRI, increasing the average size of an NSF research grant

will help address the need for more attention to small-scale infrastructure.

UTUREUTURE

UTURE

EEDSEEDS

EEDS

ANDAND

AND

PPORTUNITIESPPORTUNITIES

PPORTUNITIES

Table 7 summarizes the 10-year projection of future S&E infrastructure

requirements identified in reports provided by each of the NSF directorates and

OPP. The degree of specificity employed in identifying the requirements ranged

from listing specific facilities and instrumentation to providing rough estimates

for broad categories of infrastructure needs. Hence, the $18.9 billion estimate of

funding needed over the next 10 years must be viewed as a rough indication of

need, and not one that has been assessed and formally endorsed by the NSB.

In order to view the commonalities and differences between scientific fields, a

summary of the infrastructure needs of each directorate and office is presented

below.

TABLE 7.

NSF FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, FY 2003-12

Range of Project Cost TOTAL %

$1M - $10M 3,950 20

$11M - $50M 5,400 29

$51M - $250M 6,800 37

$251M - $500M 1,700 9

> $500M 1,000 5

Total (Millions of Dollars)

$18,850 100

The amount appropriated by Congress in FY 2003 was $84 million.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

BIO: The use of information technology and the development of numerous new

techniques have catalyzed explosive research growth and productivity. However,

infrastructure investments have not kept up with the expanding needs and

opportunities. For example, there is an increasing need to develop, maintain

and explore huge interoperable databases that result from the determination of

complete genomes. In order to thrive in the future, biological researchers will

need new large concentrated laboratories where a variety of experts meet and

work on a daily basis. They will also need major distributed research platforms,

such as the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), that link together

ecological sites, observational platforms, laboratories, databases, researchers

and students from around the globe. An essential and neglected aspect of

support for biological research is the provision of resources to make automated

data analysis and interpretation procedures publicly accessible and easily

usable by all investigators. Increasingly, published results are derived from

intensive automated data analysis and modeling and cannot be reproduced or

checked by other researchers without access to the software, which was often

developed for a specific research project.

CISE: In the future, substantial investments must be made in providing

increasingly powerful computational infrastructure necessary to support the

increasing demands of modeling, data analysis and interpretation, management,

and research. CISE researchers will require testbeds to develop and prove

experimental technologies. CISE must also expand the availability of high-

performance computing and networking resources to the broader research and

education community. Effective utilization of advanced computational resources

will require more user-friendly software and better software integration.

Funding for highly skilled technical support staff is essential to encouraging

broader participation by the community in the evolving cyberinfrastructure.

EHR: The directorate’s future needs include electronic collaboratory spaces in

support of research and instruction; centers for disseminating and validating

successful educational materials and practices at all levels; increased

computational capacity for needs in modeling and simulation in systems

research and in learning settings; and databases of international and domestic

student learning indicators.

ENG: The rapid pace of technological change will require ENG to invest

significantly more funds for research instrumentation and instrumentation

development, multiuser equipment centers, and major networked experimental

facilities, such as the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, and the

NEES. Needs for research tools are diverse, ranging from high-speed, high-

resolution imaging technology to study gene development and expression to a

suite of complex instruments that enables the simulation, design, and

fabrication of novel nano- and micro-scale structures and systems. In addition,

substantial investment is needed to enable engineering participation in grid

activities, to facilitate collaborations between engineering and computer science

researchers, and to develop tools (including improved teleoperation and

visualization tools, integrated analytical tools to support real-time analysis of

processes, multiscale modeling, and protocols for shared analytical codes and

data sets).

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

GEO: In the future, the geosciences research community will require new state-

of-the-art observing facilities and research platforms. Many of these facilities

must be mobile and/or distributed over wide geographic locations. The increased

need for distributed, interdependent observing systems will require better

networking technologies, faster access to data bases and models, real-time

access to data from observing platforms, and remote control of complex

instruments. The increased demands for climate and environmental modeling

will require high-end computational capabilities (petaflop) and new visualization

tools. An essential element in future advances is the ability to integrate data

from multiple observatories into models and data sets. The necessity of

support, noted above for biology, for publicly accessible and usable data analysis

and interpretation software applies equally here.

A NEW VIEW OF EARTH

This map of the United States shows the structure and physiographic features that

will be imaged and studied with EarthScope, a distributed, multi-purpose geophysical

instrument array. The three components are the USArray, the San Andreas Fault

Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), and the Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO). Combined

with new satellite and Global Positioning Systems, EarthScope will provide a

dynamic picture of forces and processes that shape the Earth, including those that

control earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. CREDIT: EarthScope Working Group,

2001 (information provided by David Simpson of the Incorporated Research

Institutions for Seismology)

MPS: Mathematical and physical sciences researchers seek answers to

fundamental science questions that have the potential to revolutionize how we

think about nature (e.g. the origin of mass, the origin of the matter-antimatter

asymmetry of the universe, the nature of the accelerating universe, and the

structure of new materials). Such research increasingly requires more expensive

and sophisticated instruments that range from the relatively small to the very

large, such as radio observatories, neutron scattering, x-ray synchrotron

radiation, high magnetic fields, neutrino detectors, and linear colliders. In

addition, increased investments are needed in cyberinfrastructure to facilitate

the conduct of science in the rapidly changing environment surrounding the

massive petabyte data sets from astronomy and physics facilities.

Investments

For example, the amount of data that will be produced by the Large Hadron Collider at the European

Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) will be colossal and require major advances in grid network

technology to fully exploit it.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

include high-speed communication links, access to teraflop computing

resources, and electronic communications and publishing.

OPP: With the growing realization that the polar regions offer unique

opportunities for research - in fields as disparate as neutrino-based

astrophysics and evolutionary biology at the genetic level - comes the need for

increasingly sophisticated and diverse new instrumentation. Progress in areas

such as climate change research will hinge on the development of distributed

observing systems adapted to function in the harsh polar environment with

minimum on-site maintenance and power requirements. Automated, intelligent

underwater and airborne robotic systems will be essential in providing safe and

effective access to sub-ice and atmospheric environments. High-speed

connectivity to the South Pole Station must be improved to enable scientists to

control instruments from stateside laboratories and to analyze incoming data in

real time. Finally, the basic infrastructure that enables scientists to survive in

polar regions, especially in Antarctica, must be maintained and improved.

SBE: Research in the social, behavioral and economic sciences is increasingly a

capital-intensive activity. Social science research, for example, is increasingly

dependent on the accumulation and processing of large data sets, requiring

large computer facilities, access to state-of-the-art information technologies,

and employment of trained, permanent staffs. Advances in computational

techniques are radically altering the research landscape in many research

communities. Examples include automated model search aids, sophisticated

statistical methods, modeling, access to shared databases of enormous size,

new statistical approaches to the analysis of large databases (data mining),

Web-based collaboratories, virtual reality techniques for studying social

behavior and interaction, and the use of computers for online experimentation.

Areas of Particular Priority

The demand for new S&E infrastructure is driven by scientific opportunity and

the needs of researchers; hence, it is field dependent. However, it is not the

purpose of this report to provide a detailed examination of the opportunities and

needs for each scientific discipline and field. There are many discipline-specific

surveys, studies and reports that do this quite well. Rather, in examining the

range of need and opportunities identified in the NSF directorate reports, it is

useful to consider the needs and issues they have in common. For example, the

directorates identified the following areas as having particular priority:

Cyberinfrastructure: Advances in computational and communications

technology are radically altering the research landscape for scientists and

engineers in many disciplines. In the future, these researchers must be

prepared to develop, manage and exploit an even more rapid evolution in the

tools and infrastructure that empower them. Virtually all of the directorates and

offices cited cyberinfrastructure as a top investment priority. The following were

noted as pressing needs:



Accessing the next generation of information systems including grid

computing, digital libraries and other knowledge repositories, virtual

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

reality/telepresence, and high-performance computing and networking and

middleware applications.



Expanding the availability of high-performance computing and networking

resources to the broader research and education community. As more

extensive connection across the S&E community is supported, the utility

of the resources to current users must also be sustained. Collaboration

and coordination with State and local infrastructure efforts will also be

essential. The overall goal is to provide resources and build capacity for

smaller institutions while continuously enabling new research directions

at the high end of computing performance.



Providing computational infrastructure necessary to support the increasing

demands of modeling, data analysis and management, and research.

Computational resources at all levels, from desktop systems to

supercomputing, are needed to sustain progress in S&E. The challenge is

to provide scalable access to a pyramid of computing resources from the

high-performance workstations needed by most scientists to the teraflop-

and-beyond capability critically needed for solving the grand-challenge

problems.



Increasing the ability to integrate data sets from multiple observatories

into models and physically consistent data sets. Development of

techniques and systems to assimilate information from diverse sources

into rational, accessible, and digital formats is needed. Envisioned is a

Web-accessible hierarchical network of data/information and knowledge

nodes that will allow the close coupling of data acquisition and analysis to

improve understanding of the uncertainties associated with observations.

The system must include analysis, visualization, and modeling tools.



Improved modeling and prediction techniques adequate for data analysis

under modern conditions, which include enormous data sets with large

numbers of variables, intricate feedback systems, distributed databases

with related but non-identical variable sets, and hierarchically related

variables. Academic groups, despite inadequate interfaces and support,

now implement many of the most advanced techniques as freeware.



Maintaining the longevity and interoperability of a growing multitude of

databases and data collections.

Large Facility Projects: Over half of the needs identified by the directorates

fell in the category of “large” infrastructure; i.e., projects with a total cost of $75

million or more. The reality is that many important needs identified 5 to 10

years ago have not been funded and the scientific justifications for those

facilities have grown. In the past couple of years, the number of large projects

approved for funding by the National Science Board, but not yet funded, has

grown. The FY 2003 appropriation for the MREFC Account is about $148 million.

It will require an annual investment of at least $350 million for several years to

address the backlog of research facilities construction projects.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Midsize Infrastructure: Many of the NSF directorates identified a “midsize

infrastructure” funding gap. While there is no precise definition of midsize

infrastructure, for the purposes of this report it is assumed to have a total

construction/installation cost ranging from millions to tens of millions of

dollars. Examples of infrastructure needs that have long been identified as very

high priorities but that have not been realized include acquisition of an

incoherent scatter radar to fill critical atmospheric science observational gaps;

replacement of an Arctic regional research vessel; replacement or upgrade of

submersibles; beam line instrumentation for neutron science; and major

upgrades of computational capability. In many cases the midsize instruments

that are needed to advance an important scientific project are research projects

in their own right, projects that advance the state-of-the-art or that invent

completely new instruments. These projects are not suitable for funding with

the MREFC account owing to their mix of research and instrument construction,

but they are essential if NSF is to continue to be the agency whose work leads

to developments like MRI and laser eye surgery - developments that had their

roots in research on advanced instrumentation.

Maintaining and Upgrading Existing Infrastructure: Obtaining the money to

maintain and upgrade existing research facilities, platforms, databases, and

specimen collections is a difficult challenge for universities. IT adds a new layer

of complexity to already complex science and engineering instruments. The

design and build time for large instruments can be two to four generations of IT,

while IT must be “planned in” - it cannot be designed in afterwards.

Instruments with long lifetimes must consider upgrade paths for IT systems

that will enable enhanced sensors, data rates or other improved capabilities.

The challenge to NSF is how to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure

while simultaneously advancing the state-of-the-art.

DOPPLER ON WHEELS

The Doppler on Wheels Project has created three mobile Doppler weather radars

mounted on trucks that have explored rare, short-lived and small-scale phenomena,

permitting the first-ever mappings of tornado winds, hurricane wind streaks, and

resolution of detailed tornado structure and evolution at scales well below 100 meters.

CREDIT: Ling Chan, Doppler on Wheels Project, Center for Severe Weather Research

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NNUN is a network of five

university user facilities that

offer advanced nano- and

micro-fabrication capabilities

to researchers in all fields.

NNUN has served more than

1,000 users and has given

many graduate and

undergraduate students an

opportunity to work in a state-

of-the-art facility.

Integration of research and

education is an integral part of

both the infrastructure and

research activities supported

by BIO. For example, The

Arabidopsis Information

Resources (TAIR) site

maintains and curates the

fundamental databases used

by all Arabidopsis researchers,

as well as supporting a wide

range of educational activities

for students and teachers.

Some BIO-supported

infrastructure supports more

students than faculty. For

example, at many biological

field stations and marine

laboratories the ratio of

student to faculty users is at

least 20 to 1.

Instrumentation Research: Increased support for research in areas that can

lead to advances in instruments, in terms of cost and function, is critically

important. Such an investment will be cost effective because skipping even one

generation of a big instrument may save hundreds of millions of dollars. Also,

totally new instruments can open doors to new research vistas. In addition,

industry is rapidly transforming the tools developed in support of basic research

into the tools and technologies of industry. At the same time, industry is relying

on NSF-sponsored fundamental research programs in universities for the initial

development of such tools.

Multidisciplinary Infrastructure Platforms: As the academic disciplines

become intertwined, there is an increasing need for sites where

multidisciplinary teams can interact and have access to cutting-edge tools. Such

facilities must be shared among a number of researchers much as a telescope is

shared among a number of astronomers. The sharing of such facilities, in turn,

requires investigators to become more collaborative and work in new ways. This

approach will require increased attention to multidisciplinary training. Open

technological platforms offer high-quality instrumentation and technological

services to researchers and institutions that could not otherwise afford them.

Networks can help guide users, provide services, and encourage interaction

between different communities.

Polar Regions Research: NSF infrastructure in the polar regions enables

research supported not only by OPP and most other NSF Directorates, but also

by the Nation’s mission agencies, notably NASA, the Department of Interior

(DoI), DoE, and the Department of Commerce (DoC). The new South Pole

Station will enable this research; however, improved transportation to the

station will be needed as will continuous high-bandwidth capability for data

transfer and connectivity to the cyberinfrastructure. In addition, NSF

infrastructure at McMurdo Station, the base for South Pole and remote field

operations, needs to be maintained at a faster pace than has occurred in recent

years. Finally, many fields of science require access to polar regions during the

winter months, a capability that currently can be supported only to a very

limited extent.

Education and Training: Investments that expand the educational

opportunities at research facilities have already had an enormous impact on

students. Many of these investments can be further leveraged by new activities

that reach out to K-12 students and influence the teaching of science and

mathematics. Similarly, the public’s direct participation in advanced

visualization access to national research facilities can open a much-needed

avenue for public involvement in the excitement of scientific discovery and the

creative process of engineering.

Infrastructure Security: The events of September 11, 2001, increased

awareness of important security issues with respect to protecting the Nation’s

S&E infrastructure. Examples include:



Preventing attacks on S&E infrastructure to destroy valuable national

resources and disrupt U.S. science and technology.

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION



Preventing use of S&E infrastructure, such as shared research Web sites,

for destructive purposes.



Ensuring security, confidence, and trust in S&E databases.

The increasingly distributed and networked nature of S&E infrastructure means

that problems can propagate widely and rapidly. Infrastructure security requires

innovations in IT to monitor and analyze threats in new settings of global

communications and commerce, asymmetric threats, and threats emanating

from groups with unfamiliar cultures and languages. The U.S. and its

international partners face unprecedented challenges for ensuring the security,

reliability and dependability of IT-based infrastructure systems. For example,

the major barriers to realizing the promise of the Internet are security and

privacy issues - research issues requiring further study - and the need for

ubiquitous access to broadband service. Current middleware and strategic

technology efforts are attempting to address these problems, but a significantly

greater investment is needed to do so successfully.

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE 21

CENTURY

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

FINDINGS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER FOUR