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 23
23
V. SOME CAUTIONARY OBSERVATIONS
The panel agreed that centers as a mode of research support can
produce significant scientific accomplishments. By assembling-where they
are needed the critical number of researchers, scale of facilities, and
types of instrumentation, centers can accelerate the generation of new
knowledge and its application.
Thus, if implemented wisely, the Science and Technology Center program
will strengthen the Foundation's role as the nation's premier agency for
the support of basic science. In acknowledging the potential value of
such centers, however, the panel recognizes several potential problems:
o
Science and Technology Centers may divert funds from individual
investigator grants, which continue to be the best means of
supporting research and training in many scientific fields. The
panel envisions increasing support for centers only in the
context of a rising NSF budget and has received assurances that
the Foundation's leadership is of the same view.
In particular, the pane! cautions strongly against a repetition
of the experience with the Defense Department's University
Research Initiative (URI) program. Supporting the URI program
without providing for an increase in total basic research (6.1 )
funds has weakened not only the existing basic science programs
of the military services but also the URI program in its
formative stages.
*
Co-chair of the Department
See the February 26,
1987, memorandum of Dr. Cornelius J. Pings,
of the Defense-University Working Group on
Engineering and science Education, to Hon. Chapman B. Cox, Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Force Management and Personnel.
OCR for page 24
24
Further, it is unavoidable that, within universities, Science and
Technology Centers will compete with individual investigator
projects for such university resources as land, building
construction, and tenured faculty positions. This problem is
real but not unique to programs supported by the Foundation.
Although acknowledging that universities labor under severe
constraints in funding instrumentation and facilities, the panel
believes that it is the responsibility of each research
university to face this issue squarely. The centers program
should be evaluated periodically to inform NSF of the cumulative
effect of the program on the universities.
o
o There is a risk that centers will in time become unresponsive to
new ideas and unreceptive to new people. The administrative
apparatus and size of centers may become obstacles to
innovation. The review procedures outlined above are designed in
part to guard against this danger, but university administrations
must also be alert to it.
o Cross-disciplinary research, which is one of the rationales for
centers, must have natural reasons for its existence. Sometimes
the best science can be done at the interfaces of disciplines,
sometimes not. It would be unfortunate if the Science and
Technology Centers program induced able scientists to abandon
important problems simply because they are not regarded as
sufficiently cross-disciplinary to be funded under the program.
No single type of Science and Technology Center should become so
predominant that other kinds of centers are excluded from
receiving support. For example, the likely popularity of
facility-based centers that furnish instrumentation and related
services should not preclude centers devoted to experimental or
theoretical work in single disciplines or across disciplines.
The objective of accelerating technology transfer could lead to a
narrow focus on near-term commercial applications in center
activities. There should be no requirement that Science and
Technology Center applicants have the prior assent or support of
OCR for page 25
25
industry. Academic laboratories have a special responsibility to
furnish leadership in breakthrough science and to call attention
to new opportunities for commercial exploitation. There may be
some lag between a discovery and recognition by business that it
warrants investment. A related danger is over-emphasis on
outreach activities to the point that they detract from research
efforts.
The funding of one or two centers in a relatively small
scientific field could concentrate a large fraction of the
talent, weakening other institutions and reducing healthy
competition. The decision to create a center should take into
account the need to maintain institutional diversity in the
field.
Finally, the panel believes that the entire continuum of size and
scale of NSF research funding should be addressed by experts outside the
Foundation. Not only large-scale activities but also individual and small
group research suffer from insufficient funds, support of too short
duration, obsolete equipment, and inadequate staffing. These are problems
that the NSF Science and Technology Centers program will not solve but
that urgently need attention.
Notwithstanding these cautions, the panel believes that Science and
Technology Centers can make significant contributions to science and the
nation's economic competitiveness if they have proper management,
resources, and evaluation and if the Foundation maintains a healthy
balance among the principal modes of research support.
OCR for page 26
Representative terms from entire chapter:
centers program
