Subject: NSF Report
From: Dot Baker <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 08:09 EST

Good Morning Paul,
    One to be posted to the NIH Listserver.  Please post as:
   NSFBBSRPT.911108
                   Dottie
 ---------------------------- Text of forwarded message -----------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title       : NSF9168--Adapting to the Future-- Report of the BBS Task Force
              Looking to the 21st Century--Executive Summary
Type        : Report
NSF Contact : BBS
Date        : November 2, 1991

ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
Adapting to the Future
Report of the BBS Task Force
Looking to the 21st Century

Directorate for Biological, Behavioral,
and Social Sciences
National Science Foundation
 
This report was developed by an external group of people for the
purpose of providing recommendations to BBS that will improve its
organizational structure and enhance the effectiveness of that
structure in responding to future scientific opportunities and
challenges. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this Executive Summary of the BBS Task Force report are
those of the external group of participants and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
 
The National Science Foundation has TDD (Telephonic Device for the
Deaf--) capability, which enables individuals with hearing impairment
to communicate with the Division of Personnel and Management about NSF
programs, employment, or general information. The TDD phone number is
(202) 357-7492.
 
IFS Escape-Time Renderings, copyrighted 1990 Gordon Lescinsky, Electronic
Visualization Laboratory, University of Illinois at Chicago.

 
Cover fractal courtesy of John C. Hart, University of Illinois at Chicago--EECS.

Adapting to the Future Report of the BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st
Century

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
Directorate for Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences
 
National Science Foundation
 
Washington, DC 20550
 
BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century
 
PAUL MAGEE (Chair), College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul
 
JEANNE ALTMANN, Alee Laboratory, University of Chicago, Illinois
 
STEPHEN R. ANDERSON, Cognitive Science Center, John Hopkins University,
Baltimore, Maryland
 
ALBERT BENNETT, School of Biological Sciences, University of California, Irvine
 
RICHARD BERK, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles
 
NANCY CANTOR, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
 
ROBERT GOODMAN, Madison, Wisconsin
 
MICHAEL GREENBERG, Whitney Marine Laboratory, University of Florida, St.
Augustine
 
JOAN HUBER, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Ohio State University,
Columbus
 
JULIUS JACKSON, Department of Microbiology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing
 
ANNE O. KRUEGER, Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina
 
JUDY L. MEYER, Zoology Department, University of Georgia, Athens
 
HAROLD MOROWITZ, Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax,
Virginia
 
RISA PALM, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Colorado, Boulder
 
CHARLES R. PLOTT, Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institu
of Technology, Pasadena
 
PETER A. ROGERSON, Department of Geography, State University of New York at
Buffalo
 
CLARENCE RYAN, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Washington State University,
Pullman
 
BARBARA SCHAAL, Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis,
Missouri
 
PETER VITOUSEK, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford
California
 
MARVALEE WAKE, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California,
Berkeley
 
STAFF
MARY E. CLUTTER, Assistant Director, Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences
 
W. FRANKLIN HARRIS, III, Executive Officer, Biological, Behavioral, and Social
Sciences
 
SONYA E. MALLINOFF, Budget and Operations Officer, Biological, Behavioral, and
Social Sciences
 
COURTLAND S. LEWIS, Writer/Editor

ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
Foreword
 
The Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences (BBS) Directorate was
established in 1976, the time of the last major reorganization of NSF,
when disciplinary research divisions became directorates. As the name
implies, BBS includes a broad spectrum of disciplines. The past 15
years have been a period of intense activity throughout these fields of
science resulting in remarkable progress. Scientific advances have been
driven by numerous factors, including the powerful techniques of
molecular biology and the introduction of computers across all fields
of science, as well as societal problems such as global change (both
environmental and social). In such a dynamic environment, static
organizations can potentially lose their effectiveness over time. It
was with this in mind--the need for a critical examination of BBS's
continuing ability to accomplish its mission--that the BBS Task Force
"Looking to the 21st Century" was established.
 
Following recommendations from the BBS Advisory Committee and
directorate management, in June 1990 I established a Task Force
consisting of 20 external representatives of the BBS science
communities. Members were selected not only because of their affinity
with BBS disciplines, but also because of their reputation for being
able to think beyond their narrow disciplines to the broader issues and
opportunities facing science today and into the 21st century. A more
complete representation of the views of all the disciplines encompassed
by BBS was sought by inviting professional societies to provide written
or oral testimony.
 
The Task Force was charged with:
 
(1) evaluating the organizational structure of the BBS Directorate in
terms of its effectiveness for meeting the current and future needs of
the areas of science within the purview of the Directorate;
 
(2) recommending options for change in the organizational structure
that would maximize the ability of NSF to respond to new opportunities
and challenges in these areas of science over the next decade; and
 
(3) identifying ways to ensure the optimal development of these
sciences through improvements in the scientific infrastructure, in NSF
proposal review and program management, in the selection of scientific
agenda and initiatives, and other non-structural changes.
 
The first meeting of the Task Force was held in September 1990, at
which time a structure for its future work was developed. A public
hearing was held in late November 1990. Of the more than 100
professional and scientific organizations invited to participate, 55
organizations ultimately testified at the hearings. Many other
organizations, as well as a few individuals, prepared written testimony
for the record.  The response from the community was enthusiastic and
appreciative of the opportunity to be involved in this important
process, one with the potential for significant impact on their
disciplines in this decade and into the next century.
 
The Task Force met four times. Their final recommendations are
extensive, thoughtful, and cover all disciplines within BBS. They range
from programmatic recommendations requiring development of new programs
or initiatives to very broad recommendations for organizational
change.
 
We are indebted to the Task Force and its chair, Dr. Paul Magee, for
their report.  They have spent considerable time debating the future of
science and its needs and have developed a thoughtful agenda for us to
pursue as we approach the next century.

MARY E. CLUTTER
Assistant Director
Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences

 
ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
Preface
 
As we approach the 21st century, no field of science has felt the
accelerating pace of scientific advance more acutely than those
presently encompassed by the Biological, Behavioral, and Social
Sciences (BBS) Directorate of the National Science Foundation.
From such successes as the discoveries in genetics which began around
mid-century to the successful application in the postwar period of
fiscal and monetary theory to minimize economic cycles, biology and the
social, economic, and psychological sciences (SEPS) have grown in
complexity and sophistication until they constitute a major part of the
intellectual endeavor of today's science. In a practical sense, these
sciences play an important role in formulating the solutions to
virtually every major problem facing humankind. The future of these
disciplines therefore promises to be even more exciting than their past
and their present.
 
It was in the context of this remarkable expansion of knowledge that
the "BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century" met in the fall of
1990. We were a group of 12 biologists and 8 scientists from the SEPS
convened to advise the Directorate on how best to position itself for
the anticipated changes and needs of the next 20 years. For me, as I
suspect was true for the rest of the group as well, the Task Force was
a remarkable learning experience. As we discovered the excitement and
the problems of disciplines far from our own, the enormous diversity of
the component areas of BBS was brought home to us. Two days of
testimony by 55 scientific societies with a perceived stake in the
organization of the Directorate only reinforced that impression. In the
end, there was a strong consensus (although not a unanimous one) on the
Task Force that the different orientations and needs in the two
clusters of disciplines, as well as the exciting potential in both,
constituted a strong intellectual and practical argument for creating
two new Directorates, one for biology and one for SEPS.
 
Although the question of whether BBS ought to be reorganized into two
new Directorates was a major item on the agenda for the first two
meetings of the Task Force, issues of scientific infrastructure, human
resources, and ways to facilitate scientific change also were addressed
at length. These discussions led to several creative and innovative
recommendations which have the potential to provide strong
reinforcement to the scientific endeavor in all the areas included in
the present BBS Directorate.
 
By far the most exciting part of our deliberations were the meetings
during which we speculated on the future directions of research in our
disciplines. It was remarkable how convergent the two groups of
scientists, biologists and SEPS, were on the future trends in their
areas. Striking similarities in themes were readily apparent, not only
among the disciplines within each group, but also between the two
groups. If a predominating theme emerged, it was that both sets of
disciplines are ready to handle levels of complexity that have been
unattainable heretofore. As a molecular geneticist, I was particularly
excited to imagine the applications of that discipline in areas as
different from it as organismal biology and ecology--in effect
reversing the trend toward reductionism which has characterized biology
over the last 50 years. From these discussions emerged ideas for
facilitating collaborations among diverse disciplinary groups in order
to encourage integration of their approaches and to promote
interdisciplinary interactions among scientists early in their careers,
at the graduate and postdoctoral level.
 
On the whole, the Task Force study was a stimulating and exciting,
albeit demanding, experience. Our job would have been impossible to
perform without the assistance of a number of people, chief among them
NSF Assistant Director Mary Clutter, the able head of BBS, who
conceived the idea of this Task Force, got us started, and provided us
with all sorts of essential information about the Directorate, the
Foundation, and the scientific communities they serve. I would also
like to thank BBS Executive Officer Frank Harris, as well as Budget
Officer Sonya Mallinoff and the rest of the wonderful staff of BBS.
Should I be inclined to wear a hat, I would doff it to writer Courtland
Lewis, who skillfully assembled a huge body of material into a coherent
final report and never (well, hardly ever) lost his good humor.
Finally, I would like to thank the Task Force members, who provided an
impressive store of exciting ideas, who worked long and hard both at
meetings and after they went home, and who managed to form a cohesive
unit despite their enormously varied scientific and institutional
backgrounds. It's always fun to work with a group of bright and
thoughtful people, and in this case it was great fun indeed.

P. T. "PETE" MAGEE, Chair BBS Task Force Looking to the 21st Century

ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
     Background Divergence of the Disciplines Currently in BBS
     Fostering Interdisciplinary Research New Initiatives Mechanisms to
     Facilitate Collaborative Research Suggestions for Improving
     Funding Policies and Procedures Improving Educational
     Opportunities and the Supply of Human Resources Strengthening and
     Promoting NSF's Unique Role Major Themes in Future Research
 
The contents of the full report of the Task Force are listed below

PART I: BACKGROUND
 
1. THE CHARGE TO THE TASK FORCE
 
2. SWEEPING CHANGE IN THE BIOLOGICAL, SOCIAL  ECONOMIC, AND
   PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES
 
     The Biological Sciences Research Scope and Directions
     Interdisciplinary Issues in Biology The Social, Economic, and
     Psychological Sciences Research Scope and Directions
     Interdisciplinary Issues in the Social, Economic, and
     Psychological Sciences
 
PART II: ISSUES REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
 
3. DIVERGENCE OF THE DISCIPLINES CURRENTLY IN BBS
 
   The Rationale for Two Directorates Arguments in Favor of the Change
   Issues Raised by the Separation Recommendations Suggested Criteria
   for Determining the Placement of
     "Bridge" Disciplines
 
   Organizational Issues in Biology Recommendations
 
4. ORGANIZATION TO FACILITATE SCIENTIFIC CHANGE
 
Issues and Discussion Recommendations
 
5. INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
 
Human Resources and Education Instrumentation and Facilities Methods
and Measurement Recommendations Recommendations for Human Resource
Development Recommendations in Other Infrastructure Areas
 
PART III: LONGER-TERM ISSUES
 
6. NSF IN THE 21st CENTURY:  PURSUING THE FUNDAMENTAL MISSION
 
Expanding Opportunities, Constricted Resources Advancing NSF's Unique
Role Increasing the Visibility and Priority of Science Mechanisms for
Support of Science
 "Mission-motivated" Research: Sponsoring New  Initiatives Centers vs.
 Individual Investigator Research Interactions With Industry Global
 Science Cost Containment Priorities in Research
 Long and Broad Sunrise and Sunset Data Bases

7. A GLIMPSE OF SCIENCE FUTURE
 
Future Science in Biology
 Structural Biology Integrative Roles of Chemical Signaling Systems
 Biomechanics Ecology Behavioral Biology Evolution as Experimental
 Science Computational Biology Integrative Biology Major Themes
 
Future Science in SEPS "Stop-and-Go Rules" for Behavior
 Exploration of Political Decision Processes Design of New Economic
 Organizations Cognitive Organization Across Modalities and Species
 Anthropology and High Technology Coupling of Social, Biological, and
 Physical Processes Global Perspectives in Geography Major Themes How
To Promote Development of Future Science
 
APPENDIX A: TASK FORCE MEETINGS
 
APPENDIX B: PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA AND WITNESSES

 
ADAPTING TO THE FUTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
Executive Summary
 
Background
 
The past 15 years have seen sweeping changes throughout the biological,
behavioral, and social sciences. These changes--from genetic
engineering to major advances in our understanding of human behavior
and mental function, from the use of satellites to provide new data for
geographers to the application of game theory to help explain major
political events, to an understanding of the loss of biological species
in an ever more fragile and endangered natural environment--have been
driven by new scientific techniques, new knowledge, and new challenges
facing scientists. The most basic scientific principles have been
refined and extended. The advent of powerful and affordable computers
has changed the way that scientists pursue their research, store and
analyze data, and conceptualize the knowledge spheres in which they
work.  Interdisciplinary research has become increasingly prevalent as
many of the boundaries between traditional disciplines have softened or
dissolved, and as new disciplines have emerged.
 
The National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Biological,
Behavioral, and Social Sciences (BBS) has been in the forefront of
these changes, funding basic research at universities across the range
of fields within its purview. These fields encompass a broad spectrum
of disciplines, including (to name just some of the major ones):
 
genetics biochemistry molecular biology cell biology organismal biology
plant biology ecology evolutionary biology systematic biology
neurobiology behavioral biology conservation biology biotechnology
 
anthropology geography political science sociology financial economics
economic development econometrics developmental psychology social
psychology physiological psychology cognitive science artificial
intelligence linguistics
 
It is an enormous scope of activity. Total Ph.D. production in these
fields exceeds that of all other fields of science and engineering
combined. The BBS Directorate has endeavored to both lead and follow
changes across this spectrum, structuring its programs to accommodate
emerging needs while being alert to future scientific opportunities. To
that end, the Directorate has engaged excellent professional staff and
enlisted the aid of literally thousands of scientists to help in
directing current research programs and shaping the research agenda of
the future.
 
In 1990, the leadership of BBS and its Advisory Committee recognized
the need for a fresh look at the Directorate and the research programs
it oversees. Accordingly, the "Task Force Looking to the 21st Century"
was formed and charged with:
 
(1) evaluating the organizational structure of the BBS Directorate in
terms of its effectiveness for meeting current and future scientific
needs;
 
(2) recommending options for change in the organizational structure and
that would maximize the responsiveness of NSF to opportunities and
challenges; and
 
(3) identifying ways to ensure the optimal development of the sciences
through improvements in the scientific infrastructure, in proposal
review and program management, and other non- structural changes.
 
The Task Force study was conducted over a 9-month period, with
participation by scores of representatives from the scientific
community. The resulting full report of the Task Force makes numerous
recommendations for changes in NSF organizational structure and
practices, many of which the Task Force believes are vital to the
future health of the biological, behavioral, and social sciences.
 
The Task Force recognizes that these recommendations will be
implemented only after they have first been carefully considered, one
by one, and accepted by NSF and its advisory bodies at all levels. We
also recognize that available funds and resources, as well as the need
to obtain approval from appropriations authorities outside NSF, will in
many cases limit the Foundation's ability to act on those
recommendations it wishes to implement. For this reason, we have
prioritized the recommendations in this Executive Summary. Those
considered to be of the highest priority are presented in boldface,
with their full text as set forth in the main report. Recommendations
deemed as secondary but still important are summarized in the text
discussion of each issue in the Summary. All recommendations, whether
full or summarized, are followed by a reference to the page(s) of the
main report wherein fuller discussion may be found.

Divergence of the Disciplines Currently in BBS
 
The enormous diversity of the disciplines encompassed by the BBS
Directorate is obvious, and the growth and divergence of disciplines
continues. Although there are numerous interdisciplinary interactions,
a strong clustering of research interests and priorities has been seen
within the Biological sciences on the one hand, and the Behavioral and
Social sciences on the other. Because three of the five research
divisions in the BBS Directorate are almost exclusively focused on
biology, a perception has developed within the behavioral and social
sciences community that the needs and interests of biologists
predominate. Yet the emerging theories and concepts in the various
behavioral and social sciences will be extremely important in our
understanding of the sweeping changes taking place in human societies
as we enter the 21st century. Consequently, the formation of a separate
directorate for the social, economic, and psychological sciences (SEPS)
was a major topic of discussion by the Task Force.
 
The Task Force came to the conclusion that the scope of the present
directorate is far too broad to give sufficient attention to the
social, economic, and psychological sciences while still encompassing
the full range of fields within the biological sciences.  SEPS
scientists outnumber biologists by a large margin. Scientists in the
SEPS disciplines need an environment within NSF which fosters the
particular styles of research and education they practice and which
meets their needs more exactly.  Further, instrumentation and data
requirements in the SEPS and biological sciences differ considerably.
Proper administration of these disciplines requires special attention,
talent, and policies. Although the current leadership of the BBS
directorate has worked very hard to include the SEPS in the reports and
funding priorities for the directorate, funding remains at pre-1980
levels in most of these disciplines (even in actual dollar terms), and
they are often not included in major Foundation programs and
initiatives. In short, the SEPS need representation at the highest
levels of decision-making in the Foundation through an Assistant
Director. Through their own Assistant Director, the SEPS can
participate in decisions on NSF resource allocations as equal partners
with colleagues in the biological, geological, and physical sciences
and engineering.
 
Arguments against the separation, including the view that the SEPS need
the biological sciences as a buffer to shield them from politically
based criticism and the concern that a separation might hamper
cross-disciplinary efforts between the two areas, were not compelling.
Although the formation of two separate directorates will mean higher
total administrative costs within NSF, the costs entailed were judged
to be justified by the scientific benefits to be derived from the
formation of the two directorates. Accordingly:
 
The Task Force recommends that two distinct directorates be established
to replace the present directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and
Social Sciences. One of these is to be devoted to research in the
biological sciences (BIO), and the other to the social, economic and
psychological sciences (SEPS). Details concerning the precise division
of present programs between the two directorates, and especially the
internal organization of the SEPS Directorate, are left for future
determination by the Foundation. The Task Force recommends that the
widest possible formal consultation be undertaken to determine the
division and program structure of the SEPS Directorate. However, such
consultation should in no way delay the formation of the two proposed
directorates.
 
The SEPS Directorate should include such disciplines as economics,
linguistics, sociology, cognitive science, psychology, geography,
political science, and possibly anthropology, as well as such
interdisciplinary fields as law and social science; and decision, risk,
and management science. Both new directorates should also include a
separate division or program responsible for infrastructure,
instrumentation, measurement, and methodology. [pp. 29-35] Several
areas are difficult to "divide" between the two directorates, and the
productive relationships between such interdisciplinary areas (for
example, neurosciences, anthropology, and the study of animal behavior)
should be carefully nurtured.  Cross-directorate activities will be
necessary for these fields to maintain a distinct identity within NSF.
[p. 36]
 
While the detailed organization of a separate SEPS Directorate was a
task beyond the scope and competence of the present Task Force,
specific organizational issues in the proposed BIO Directorate were
addressed more directly. An immediate concern was the presence of a
perceived gap in the organizational structure. This lack is
particularly important now, since much of the exciting work in genetics
and molecular and cell biology is at the stage where it can be
fruitfully applied at this level.  Specifically, the study of
biological sciences within the Foundation is structured along levels of
biological organization from biological molecules to ecosystems. The
missing level within this hierarchy is that relating to organisms.
Aspects of organismal and comparative biology are studied in at least
three current BBS programs, but each of these has its own emphases and
directions independent of the study of integrated organisms. Over a
dozen scientific societies testified to the Task Force that organismal
biology is now not being well served by the Foundation. Thus, the
primary recommendation relating to the structure of the new BIO
Directorate is the following:
 
The Task Force proposes that a new program be formed within the
Biological Sciences Directorate at NSF to study the form and function
of organisms in view of their evolution and environmental interaction.
This program in organismal biology would support studies on structure
and function at the organismal level and on the integration of
different components in organismal function. The level of this research
unit in the organizational hierarchy of the Directorate should be
determined by NSF, in consultation with representatives of the research
community. [pp. 38-40]
 
The Task Force also suggested that most programs in the existing
Division of Behavioral and Neural Sciences (BNS) should remain in the
proposed BIO Directorate.  Any potential organizational structures
should be considered in light of remaining programs, the proposed new
organismal biology program, and the goal of fostering inter-unit
research. In particular, programs in Language, Cognition, and Social
Behavior should be moved to the SEPS Directorate. Although
neurosciences should remain within the BIO Directorate, the field of
behavioral neurosciences should be given additional representation
within the SEPS Directorate. Because physical and cultural
anthropologists tend to have different views regarding their proper
placement within the new directorates, further deliberation on this
question, including additional input from the anthropological community
and others, will be necessary before a final decision is made. A
Program in Science, Technology, and Society should remain in the
Division of Instrumentation and Resources (DIR), within the Biological
Sciences Directorate. [pp. 40-41]

Fostering Interdisciplinary Research
 
Although scientific change often occurs through strong advances in a
single established discipline, today new knowledge appears with
increasing frequency at the boundaries of disciplines. It is in the
interaction between domains of knowledge that many of the most
productive areas of research are found.
 
The BBS Directorate recognizes this fact and attempts to adjust its
structure and programs to accommodate interdisciplinary research.
Nevertheless, the need for structure inevitably creates problems at the
boundaries of organizational units. There is a concern that proposals
at the boundaries may have less chance of being funded.  Individual
program officers may vary in their degree of commitment to supporting
change. Finally, the enormous proposal review load (nearly 10,000
applications were reviewed in BBS during FY 1990) severely restricts
the time available for NSF staff to learn about the newest concepts and
developments and to explore cross-disciplinary opportunities with other
program officers.
 
The recommendations of the Task Force in this area reflect three
premises: (1) the most important changes in science usually come from
individual investigators; (2) the impact that individual NSF program
officers have in fostering or impeding change cannot be overstated; and
(3) interdisciplinary work and scientific change cannot develop without
adequate support for the core disciplines. [pp. 47-48]

Directorate level:
 
The Assistant Director(s) should have a reserve fund of discretionary
money to be directed at funding new interdisciplinary activities across
divisions and directorates.  Such funds should not be targeted to
programs. The funds should be available on a competitive basis to
Program Directors from two or more divisions who present, through their
Division Directors, a joint request for funding for a specific project.
The funding should be significant enough that program officers are
willing to "stretch" their programs to compete successfully for it. [p.
51]

Division level:
 
The Directorate(s) should consider establishing Division Advisory
Committees in addition to the Directorate Advisory Committee and the
program panels. These committees would assist in identifying important
and emerging issues in the fields served by the Directorate(s) and in
suggesting ways in which those needs could be addressed. In particular,
they could set larger-scale goals and directions and develop
cross-division research initiatives. [pp. 40; 50]

Program level: [pp. 48-50]
 
Programs should be organized so that they are not constrained by
disciplinary or departmental lines. Programs should not just enable,
but actively sponsor, interdisciplinary work.
 
Program Directors should be encouraged to meet with other Program
Directors (in other divisions within the Directorate, as well as across
directorates) to discuss the possibilities for joint funding of
proposals that are now "falling between the cracks."
 
The current large proposal load impedes communication among Program
Directors regarding interdisciplinary opportunities. The
recommendations of the NSF Merit Review Task Force should be adopted
with regard to a more streamlined proposal review process and perhaps a
shorter proposal.* (The Task Force did not favor the idea of a
"preproposal.") More visiting scientists at NSF would reduce the
proposal review load on all staff.
 
A pool of reserve panelists that includes expertise from outside the
areas of currently constituted panels should be maintained to help with
proposal review in periods of peak workload.
 
Each division should consider designating a person to be a facilitator
of interdisciplinary research. This person would have no responsibility
for proposal review, but would be charged with building bridges across
programs, divisions, and especially directorates. Such a role might be
ideal for a visiting scientist.
 
Subpanels should be formed from two or more review panels to review
interdisciplinary proposals.
 
Visiting scientists, panelists, and reviewers should all be carefully
selected for breadth of expertise.
 
NSF should continue to publicize even more actively the existence of
established cross-directorate programs, such as "shadow programs," as
well as possibilities for new activities of this type.
 
Other steps can also be taken to facilitate scientific change in
general. For example, all Program Directors should meet routinely with
their panels (as, indeed, many are now doing) to discuss and target new
areas of interest and new initiatives. These discussions should inform
the deliberations of the Division Advisory Committees.  Also,
university research faculty should be brought in during the summer to
advise the program and division staff regarding current advances and
trends in research.  NSF must offer meaningful inducements (including
the largest possible program budgets) to attract good program officers.
Finally, NSF should not hesitate to take judicious risks in funding
novel and innovative research. [pp. 49-50]

New Initiatives
 
Large-scale new initiatives (such as the Sustainable Biosphere
Initiative and the Global Change Initiative) are becoming increasingly
important as vehicles for scientific change. They are especially useful
management mechanisms, for they provide new opportunities for basic
research while inspiring the public and the Congress to support the
work of the NSF.
 
The Task Force recommends the continued development of new and
attractive initiatives. These initiatives, whether encompassing one
directorate or several, should be both large and broad, so as to
maximize the number of new opportunities for basic research and the
diversity of scientists applicable to that research. Such initiatives
should have a set life span which should be extended only rarely. [p.
52]
 
The sponsor(s) of any large-scale new initiative should structure
funding for the initiative by identifying the basic research areas that
will feed into the initiative and supporting those areas. NSF should
identify the relevant disciplinary subelements; determine the amount of
increase in the base that will be required; and request that amount to
support its contribution. An overall architecture of the initiative
across agencies would facilitate the identification of the important
areas. Scientific societies should participate actively in development
of such an architecture. However, excessive coordination of research
agendas across federal agencies in pursuit of joint initiatives,
leading to a rigid apportionment of responsibilities for areas of
science, should be avoided. Flexibility must be a major priority.
 
In implementing the initiative process, special care must be taken not
to exclude sciences that are not readily associated with existing
programs and divisions of NSF.  This includes small or severely
underfunded areas that do not have staff available to participate in
the formulation of mission statements and research strategies (some of
the SEPS disciplines are a case in point). [pp. 76-78]
 
Mechanisms to Facilitate Collaborative Research
 
Promoting interdisciplinary research, new initiatives, and
cross-divisional and cross-directorate activities in NSF are all
important mechanisms for advancing science.  Equally important in an
environment of rapid change is the provision of means for researchers
to work together, pooling their knowledge and energies. Therefore, the
Task Force developed several suggestions for new ways of collaborating
and mechanisms by which NSF could encourage collaboration.
 
NSF should provide temporary support for periods of up to 1 year for
"Institutes Without Walls." These would be investigator-initiated,
collaborative, multi-investigator research efforts that might function
in a variety of ways. Some might require onsite work at a particular
facility-- for example, for five investigators to study protein
structure at a protein structure facility. Others would be conclaves of
a group of researchers (numbering perhaps 25 or fewer) that would
function like a Research Training Group, convened for a few weeks
perhaps in the summer. This mechanism could be very useful for
fostering interdisciplinary work--especially between directorates.
Ongoing, naturally occurring mergers like that between economics and
political science could be facilitated by such a mechanism; in many
cases it would be preferable to establishing "bridge" programs. [p. 53]
 
Long-term (1-2 years) collaborative arrangements should be set up so
that whole laboratory groups could work together in physical proximity.
A special case of an "Institute Without Walls," these activities could
in fact be located at special facilities (at scanning tunneling
microscopes, for example). The activity could be funded as supplements
to single-investigator research grants; salaries could move with the
researchers.  [pp. 105-106]
 
Gatherings focused on a specific scientific issue or set of issues, and
involving fewer than 100 researchers for about 5 days, should be
convened to give impetus to new research areas. These workshops could
be funded by focusing Gordon conferences on the new fields or replacing
them with new meetings in a new format. The workshops would differ from
traditional Gordon conferences in that they would be one- time affairs
and would be much more specifically focused. At these workshops, a
specific assignment might be given to the participants (e.g., develop a
model of fisheries off the Monterey coast), the outcome of which would
be useful if it were successful.  However, successful application would
not be the point; it would be the exercise itself that would be
important, and the establishment of linkages and ways of communicating
among the participants.  [p. 105]
 
The SEPS and biological sciences are no longer low-budget. There are
several steps NSF can take to maximize scientists' access to
instrumentation and facilities while minimizing costs. These include:
(a) promote joint interagency funding of instrument development and
support, especially for big-ticket items; (b) establish multi-user
facilities (i.e., multi-institutional, multi-Directorate sharing) and
promote their cooperative use; and (c) tailor the uses of facilities
that are being developed "for the common good" (e.g., NSFNET, parallel
computing) to achieve maximum service and utility for users. The latter
will require early input from all prospective users. The key
consideration is that the instrument get maximum use--whether it be by
one school, one state, or a region. [p. 65]
 
"Institutes Without Walls" and other collaborative mechanisms should be
viewed as nodes of interaction, neither permanent nor highly
specialized. A facilitating infrastructure of computers and computer
networks will be essential for the operation of these nodes. If
necessary, these facilities could be funded as supplements to PI
grants. [p. 105]
 
As the globe shrinks through electronic communications, rapid
transportation, and international business, the scale of science is
rapidly becoming global in many fields.  International studies require
international collaboration. At present, the mechanisms for pursuing
such studies are highly imperfect. In addition, the ability to
collaborate productively with American researchers varies greatly
across fields and countries.
 
Better mechanisms are needed to facilitate international collaborative
studies. NSF should convene colloquia, perhaps in conjunction with
international scientific conferences, to discuss this topic.
Foundations are a valuable source of both funds and expertise in this
area. NSF should seek out, identify, and remove any obstacles that may
be found to be impeding international studies. [pp. 80-81]

Suggestions for Improving Funding Policies and Procedures
 
Funding support is the lifeblood of research. Yet the Task Force
recognizes that this is a time of budgetary austerity. Budget increases
in science are generally small and hard-won, if they are won at all.
Therefore, the Task Force was mindful of cost as it developed its
recommendations and attempted wherever possible to suggest ways to
minimize or offset the cost of implementing them, and to suggest
criteria for making the allocation decision. Those recommendations that
entail added cost describe actions that were judged to be essential for
protecting the future of science.
 
One such is the targeting of a field for special support. Occasionally
it happens that, although a given field is important and necessary, the
"market" fails: i.e., the number of scientists and faculty dwindles and
programs disappear. A past example is plant biology, which had declined
throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Current examples are systematic
biology and certain areas of statistics and applied mathematics that
are particularly relevant to the SEPS. The Task Force believes that
such targeting is necessary under certain circumstances.
 
The Task Force recommends that a field be targeted for special support
when it is in danger of disappearing due to a shortage of researchers
and faculty and either (a) it provides an essential service function
(such as systematics collections), (b) circumstances such as a lack of
facilities are preventing its growth, or (c) it is undergoing a
transformation and revitalization through new research approaches.
Continuation of such support should be keyed to assessment of its
effectiveness. The scientific community has an important role to play
in preventing the unwarranted and untimely death of a field and
targeting it for special attention through workshops, initiatives, and
personal efforts to draw attention to its needs. [pp. 50-51]
 
The Task Force recommends that targeted programs or disciplines include
a blueprint for how they are to be "mainstreamed." Mainstreaming would
involve continuing the base funding for the program but ending the
special funding. One mechanism for monitoring progress would be to
assess at intervals (e.g., 5 years) whether the attainment of goals
specified in the blueprint is on track with the timetable established
there. [pp. 84-85] Certain categories of scientists--the untenured, the
young, minorities, and women-- are more vulnerable to the vicissitudes
of competition for grant funding. At the same time, the scientific
community needs to expand its pool of faculty researchers and increase
its diversity. Therefore, several recommendations are directed at
funding policies relating to these groups.
 
A special category of research awards, similar to the Presidential
Young Investigator awards but more widely granted, should be made
available to beginning investigators.  Awardees would receive funding
for 3 years in the SEPS and 5 years in the biological sciences. The
review process would not be different from the existing process. The
purpose would be to enable the beginning investigator to establish a
research program before a renewal application is needed, rather than
having the renewal come due just as the program is getting started. [p.
63]
 
NSF should establish awards aimed at minorities and women, similar to
the Research Career Development Awards (RCDAs) at NIH, that would
encourage academic institutions to hire more diverse faculty and would
help make research careers more attractive to talented minority and
women students. These awards would allow the holders time to develop
their scholarly skills; they would also encourage universities to move
more women and minorities into career-track positions. The currently
available Career Advancement Awards for women are an example of what
might be done. [p. 64]
 
Another suggestion would be for NSF to establish a program of
non-renewable small grants to provide basic support to beginning or
previously funded investigators whose applications fall below the
funding line but above a certain pre-established level of the grant
applications in a particular funding cycle. The amount of award would
be independent of the budget requested in the proposal. The purpose of
the program would be to ensure (1) that beginning investigators do not
have to see their career end with their first job due to an inability
to obtain funding, and (2) that existing laboratories do not have to be
dismantled as the result of one renewal failure.  [p. 64]
 
The requirement for matching funds for instrumentation, while posing a
problem for many institutions, is especially difficult for
predominantly undergraduate schools-- and most especially for
historically black or Hispanic colleges and universities. The Task
Force recommends that NSF consider exercising flexibility in the
requirement with regard to these categories of institutions. [p. 65]
 
An important priority for the two directorates will be to retain the
breadth of the sciences under their purview. In biology, that refers to
the diversity of organisms, ecosystems, and research approaches. In
SEPS, maintaining breadth means continuing to provide opportunities
across a wide spectrum and not allowing programs to be captured by a
dominant or fashionable perspective. Breadth is maintained better by
funding a large number of small projects rather than a small number of
large ones.  [p. 84]
 
Again in view of the constraints on available funds, the overall level
of funding of Principal Investigators should be examined to ensure that
funds are spent effectively on innovative research. In particular, new
applications for already heavily funded programs should be scrutinized
to ensure that augmentations of funding will be applied to new, not
add-on, research topics. The intention here is not to obtain any form
of parity, but to be sure that NSF funds are aimed at original
projects, not just additional work in already well-funded lines of
investigation. [p. 63]
 
Given the paucity of funds, large long-term data bases such as those
maintained in the SEPS have become controversial. In addition to
whatever discipline-specific criteria seem appropriate, a general
criterion should be applied to all such data base projects:  they must
be dynamic and responsive to changing science in their field. Large,
long-term data bases should continue to be held to standards as strict
as those for smaller grants. All such projects must be designed to be
flexible and responsive to change. Also, a criterion for establishing
large data bases should be that they can be used by scientists from a
variety of disciplinary perspectives. [pp. 85-86]
 
Finally, the Task Force recommends that construction and renovation
("bricks and mortar") should be given low priority for direct funding,
except for specialized research facilities such as marine labs and
field stations, and where lack of funds for renovation threatens the
existence of an existing research facility. [p. 64]
 
Improving Educational Opportunities and the Supply of Human Resources
The number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the SEPS and biological
sciences has declined sharply since the mid-1970s. The pool of
18-to-24-year-olds in the U.S.  population is declining, and will
continue to decline for the next decade. At the same time, the level of
interest and capability of students in science and mathematics is
falling off. Together, these trends point to a diminishing pool of
scientists in many of the BBS fields.
 
To promote scholarship while encouraging the valuable mentoring
function, NSF should establish a program to provide research support to
predominantly undergraduate institutions that send a relatively high
percentage of their graduates to graduate and professional school. This
program would provide a sum of money to the college to be used for
research supplies, equipment, summer salaries, and travel to meetings.
Grants would be awarded for 5 years; the criteria for renewal would be
the record of the graduates of the institution in postgraduate training
and the uses proposed by the institution in the application.
Institutions that exceed a certain level of competitively funded
research grants (discounting very small research grants and research
contracts) would not be eligible. Historically black or Hispanic
colleges and universities should be given special priority for these
grants. [pp. 63-64] The Task Force was concerned about the shrinking
pool of students entering the science "pipeline," a problem that
affects the SEPS and biological sciences as it does all other sciences.
NSF's Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate has recently had
its charge and funding expanded partly to address this problem at the
precollege (K-12) level. There was a feeling that the greatest leverage
can be gained by placing the emphasis on teachers, rather than on
students directly. Teachers are the effectors who touch large numbers
of students directly year after year. If they can be revitalized in
science, the effect on students should be considerable. The development
of programs to expose teachers to the process as well  as the content
of contemporary science, especially in a context of  actual laboratory
or field research experience, should therefore be a priority.
 
NSF should develop programs to involve primary and secondary school
teachers, as well as community college teachers, in the experience of
working in science. One mechanism would be to extend the Research
Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program to teachers, who could be
employed for the summer months with universities to work with NSF
grantees. NSF Science and Technology Centers, with their emphasis on
education and available program staff, would provide an ideal location
for involving larger numbers of teachers and perhaps offering seminars
for teachers. Local private sources as well as funds from school
districts and universities could be solicited for support. Scientific
societies should be able to apply for NSF funds to conduct workshops
for teachers, just as universities can. State science teachers'
associations can become involved to coordinate these programs and
provide a focal point for recruitment and support. Such programs should
be considered postgraduate training for the teachers, and participation
should be rewarded by the school systems. [pp. 56-57; 61] Outreach from
the scientific community can be broader than offering programs for
teachers to attend. Programs should be put in place that permit working
scientists to interact with the precollege educational structure
through "visiting teacher" roles, lectures, participation in Science
Fairs as consultants and judges, etc. Younger scientists would be
particularly effective here. Predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowship
recipients should be encouraged to participate in outreach programs,
and even to devise their own plan for doing so. A special type of
research traineeship, the "outreach fellowship," should be established
as a new category of postgraduate fellowship. These would be somewhat
analogous to the teaching assistantships funded by academic
institutions. Outreach fellowships would resemble conventional
fellowships but would include a teaching and community service thrust.
Funding for outreach fellowships should be provided jointly by the
science directorate and the Education and Human Resources Directorate.
[pp. 57; 61]
 
The problems with precollege education are especially acute in the
social, economic, and psychological sciences. High school students have
virtually no exposure to SEPS curricula; nor are they exposed to the
types of mathematics needed for SEPS research (statistics, probability,
the use of linear models, input/output algorithms, etc.), or to any
context for applying these methods in the SEPS. Thus, they arrive at
college lacking the tools needed to pursue even entry-level work in the
SEPS. The Task Force stresses that precollege exposure to SEPS
curricula reflecting contemporary research, along with appropriate
statistics and mathematics, is critical to the future of the SEPS
sciences. NSF can play a major role in filling this gaping hole.
Continued and increased coordination with the EHR Directorate is
essential. First, basic research in the SEPS must begin to inform the
precollege education programs of the EHR Directorate. Second, NSF must
put its prestige behind the assertion that the social, economic, and
psychological sciences are sciences. Third, the EHR Directorate should
assemble a Task Force for curriculum analysis. Specific SEPS curriculum
needs in mathematics and statistics must also be addressed. [pp. 57-58;
61-62]
 
Education must keep pace with the evolving sciences. To facilitate
scientific change, both training and professional enrichment in inter-
and cross-disciplinary research approaches are needed at all levels of
education and practice. For example, opportunities for graduate and
postdoctoral students to obtain cross- disciplinary training are badly
needed. One mechanism would involve graduate training in one field and
postdoctoral work in another. The mechanism of a "complementary"
master's degree program also could be employed, whereby a PhD candidate
in one field could simultaneously obtain a master's degree in another
field and prepare a dissertation reflecting that complementary
training. [p. 52]
 
Training opportunities also are needed for scientists in mid- career to
acquire new or upgraded skills and knowledge to facilitate their
research. (An example might be the comparative endocrinologist learning
molecular biology techniques.) Opportunities are also needed for
scientists in mid-career to obtain additional training in collateral
fields, which is necessary for participation in cross- disciplinary
research. (An example would be the economist who wishes to obtain
training in ecological modeling, or a mathematician learning aspects of
SEPS.) Such additional training at mid-career can stimulate a wealth of
new ideas. [pp. 52-53] More mechanisms should be put in place to permit
easier funding of sabbaticals to permit updating or retraining of
scientists in mid-career. [pp. 62-63]

 
Strengthening and Promoting NSF's Unique Role
 
Throughout the latter half of this century, NSF has been the federal
agency uniquely concerned with overseeing the maintenance, development,
and advancement of basic scientific research, particularly in the long
term. In recent years, the Foundation has also begun to pursue a
certain amount of "mission-motivated" research, which is medium-term
research conducted with the hope of contributing to the solution of a
generally defined and not fully understood problem (such as the loss of
species or the human impact on the environment). NSF remains unique
among federal research-funding agencies because it does not support
mission-oriented research (which is targeted toward near-term solution
of a specific, well-defined problem).  Basic and mission-motivated
research differ from mission-oriented research in that they frequently
produce unexpected results--and it is this access to the  unexpected
that is the true engine of scientific and technological advancement.
 
The Task Force urges the proposed BIO and SEPS Directorates to pursue
energetically their unique role, which is to support basic and
mission-motivated research at all levels of biological and social
organization, primarily in non-medical academic institutions in the
case of biology, and over the long term in all cases. To this end, the
directorates will have two important objectives: (1) to maintain
diversity and support quality in scientific inquiry by maintaining the
best research in the complete range of subdisciplines; and (2) to
recognize, develop, and promote novel programs and rapidly advancing
fields while being sure that scientific progress is not unbalanced by
short-term considerations such as specific missions or "glamorous"
fields. [pp. 70-72]
 
In pursuing its unique role, BBS or the two new directorates will often
appear to be duplicating the activities of the many agencies that focus
on a specific mission or on some aspect of science. This overlap will
surely occur, for example, at the molecular and cellular levels in
biology--where phenomena are general, applicable to human health and
disease, agriculture, and energy production, and therefore within the
mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of
Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This overlap
means that a portion of the scientific community draws support for its
research from more than one agency.  However, it also means that a
significant percentage of proposals are submitted in virtually
identical form to BBS (or the proposed BIO Directorate) and one or more
other agencies, with only one source providing all of the funding.
These duplicate applications increase the overall proposal load and
diminish the uniqueness of the Directorate's role by diluting the basic
character of proposals submitted.
 
To reduce the administrative load caused by duplicate applications and
their blurring of the proposed BIO Directorate's image vis-a-vis the
NIH and other mission agencies, such proposals should not be accepted
for processing by the Directorate. True joint submissions (to two or
more agencies or NSF directorates), like all applications, should
continue to be evaluated for their relevance to the special interests
of the Foundation: i.e., fundamental scientific significance and
importance to scientific training. [p. 73] This recommendation is
specifically aimed at the proposed BIO Directorate; the proposed SEPS
Directorate, having no agency like the NIH with which it shares a large
constituency, should find that duplicate applications pose no problem.
 
The unique role of the Directorate has not been adequately
communicated, either to the public at large or to its representatives
in the Congress. NSF must become more vocal and effective in convincing
Congress that science is a priority. It is particularly important for
NSF to raise the visibility of the social, economic, and psychological
sciences and promote the need for basic research in these fields. BBS
(or the two new directorates) can do their part by presenting a strong
message through publications such as the annual reports of the
Foundations and the directorate(s). NSF should strive to improve the
reporting of science issues to the public by holding conferences for
science journalists and urging universities to establish more
interdisciplinary graduate programs in science journalism. The
scientific societies and the university associations also have a
distinct role to play through their legislative affairs offices.  To be
most persuasive, however, this message should come from the President;
efforts should be made to gain direct Presidential support for science
in general and NSF in particular.  [pp. 74-76]
 
Presuming continued tight funding, NSF can pursue its role of
maintaining the diversity of science and fostering the emergence of new
fields only by making difficult choices. Making those choices will
require that the Foundation maintain a clear view of its priorities.
One priority for NSF should be to take the long view.  Other government
agencies tend to take a shorter view of science, one dictated by their
mission needs. NSF's long view of science will help to ensure that
temporarily unfashionable fields receive support before they are
irretrievable damaged. Most importantly, though, it will lead NSF to
fund research in areas where fundamental discoveries will fuel the
mission-motivated and mission-oriented research of the future. NSF
should fund a certain number of long-term projects (5 years or longer)
in different areas, without regard for their potential for near-term
application. [pp.  83-84]
 
The Task Force urges continued support for selected long- term
projects, including Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites, large
data bases, etc. Specific projects not now included should be examined
for possible support (e.g., germplasm maintenance); this is especially
true for the SEPS, which have many longstanding unmet needs.
Procedures for evaluating long-term projects from the standpoint of
"sunsetting" them (non-renewal) or moving them to more appropriate
institutions when necessary should be formalized. [pp. 64-65]
 
The Division Advisory Committees of the Directorates should be charged
with maintaining the long view of the sciences under their purview.
They should also identify specific base areas (e.g., systematics) and
facilities (e.g., collections) that must be maintained regardless of
current fashions in science. Essential base areas and facilities must
be identified before they suffer permanent erosion or loss, and
mechanisms for doing so are needed. [pp. 83- 84]
 
Finally, to help maintain an awareness of long-term trends, NSF should
institutionalize the receiving of input from the scientific community,
such as took place during the hearings held by this Task Force. A
mechanism (perhaps a general forum) should be established whereby
professional societies and other interested groups can provide
testimony to NSF on a regular basis regarding the emerging and
long-term needs and opportunities in the sciences. [pp. 51-52]

Major Themes in Future Research
 
The Task Force concluded its study by developing an informal overview
of some of the specific research thrusts that are likely to establish a
high priority in the various disciplines of the biological, social,
economic, and psychological sciences over the next 10-20 years. A
predominant theme in the BIO area is the movement of biological
sciences away from analytical reductionism--in which scientists strive
to learn the simplest facts and rules about biological organisms or
units--toward integration, which involves understanding the most
complex relationships within and between biological systems. The
multidisciplinary approach is inherent in such an endeavor.
 
Multidisciplinary research is also a major theme in the SEPS, where
efforts to understand complex systems involve the interaction of
components that have traditionally been thought of as falling within
distinct fields. A second theme in the SEPS is the desire to push the
foundations of the individual sciences toward deeper and more general
sets of principles and laws. New disciplines are emerging as the basic
tools provided by the existing disciplines are focused on phenomena
that were previously overlooked. A sharing of knowledge across
disciplines is becoming possible to a greater extent than ever before.
 
Thus, a blossoming of sciences is occurring, especially in the SEPS, as
the disciplines isolate key aspects of phenomena and as rigorous,
patient analysis leads to the identification of scientific principles
in areas where none were thought to exist.  Divergence--i.e., further
specialization--will continue to be important in fields whose analytic
knowledge bases are still being built. Various recommendations of the
Task Force are designed to facilitate that process where it is needed.
However, in the view of the Task Force, convergence--of disciplines,
knowledge bases, and researchers-- will be a major hallmark for many
fields of science in the 21st century. Many of the recommendations of
the Task Force are designed to encourage this process of convergence.
 
* National Science Foundation. Report of the Merit Review Task Force,
August 23, 1990, Washington, DC.

 
..stis file is nsf9168
..expires with new edition
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
 
This document is mailed as a feature of NSF's STIS system (Science and
Technology Information System).  If you would like to know more about
STIS, send a message to [email-masked] (Internet) or stisserv@NSF
(BITNET).  The subject will be ignored.  Put the following request in
the *text* of the message:
 
   Request: stis
   Topic:   nsf9110
 
For information about joining this list, send the following request:
 
   Request: stis
   Topic:   stisdirm
 
If you want to get off this list, or change your address, first
determine if you received this message from LISTSERV, by checking the
mail header.  If you got this message from LISTSERV, you must get off
by sending a message to LISTSERV.  The document "stisdirm" shown above
has information on how to do this.  If you receive this document
directly from NSF, change requests should be sent to [email-masked]
(Internet) or stis@NSF (BITNET).