Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
21
IV. GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS
RELATIONSHIP TO UNIVERSITIES
Centers must be located at a university or affiliated with a
consortium of universities. Centers should be partners in their parent
institutions' educational, research, and service missions. In view of the
outreach function of centers, host universities should create an external
mechanism for obtaining advice on center activities and regular evaluation
of their performance.
Beyond these general prescriptions, the details of administration
should be left to the universities' discretion with a minimum of federal
involvement.
NSF REVIEW
The panel recommends a nine-year funding cycle to provide centers a
reasonable opportunity to achieve their scientific objectives. Typically,
this period should include three years of funding growth, three years of
stable funding, and a terminal three years.
Because Science and Technology Centers are privileged to receive
substantial funding over a relatively long period, they should be subject
to periodic review of the highest standard. The Foundation should
evaluate a center at three-year intervals to determine the funding level
to follow. After each review, the center should be given either a
three-year renewal or a three-year period in which to terminate its
activities. Thus, barring evidence of gross mismanagement or poor
performance, each center that does not itself propose an earlier
termination will be assured of funding for at least six years from its
start-up. At the end of nine years the original grant should be
terminated.
OCR for page 22
22
Because the three-year start-up period is necessarily one of
organization, exploration, and adjustment of original plans to new or
unanticipated circumstances, the first evaluation should focus more on
scientific promise and administrative progress and less on research
accomplishments. All reviews should be conducted by external committees
of scientists appointed by the Foundation. NSF should require written
administrative reporting by the centers no more often than once a year.
Finally, separate from the process of reviewing individual centers,
there should be a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the Foundation's
entire Science and Technology Centers program in the context of all
programs supporting basic science. This function might be assigned to a
standing committee external to the Foundation.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
earlier termination
