Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

In recent years, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been work ing to develop closer links between the funding of scientific research and increasing public understanding of science. Its efforts to improve public understanding of science have focused on schools, colleges, and universities but have included support for museums, aquariums, and other programs. Those efforts are designed to prepare future scientists and educators, as well as to inform the public about how science affects society. One mechanism that NSF is using to connect education and outreach efforts to scientific research is the addition of “Criterion 2” (see below) to NSF grant proposals (http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/opp_advisory/oaccrit2.htm):

NSF has asked that grant writers consider the following questions, related to Criterion 2, as they prepare their proposals.

• What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

• How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?”

• How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (for example, ethnic minorities)?”

• To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?

• Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technologic understanding?

• What are the expected benefits of the activity to society?

Those charged with reviewing grant proposals are asked to consider the impact and feasibility of proposed activities in making funding decisions. To satisfy Criterion 2, most research grant proposals now choose to describe planned education or outreach activities and how they are related to the proposed research. These activities may involve formal education in schools, colleges, and universities; outreach via public seminars and journalism; or activities in museums and aquariums.

NSF’s Biocomplexity in the Environment initiative has been one of the few programs to require that applicants explicitly include an education or outreach component. This initiative has already gone through three funding cycles. Reviews of grant proposals and progress reports showed that many of the early education and outreach projects had not been as carefully planned as the research proposed. Many were too ambitious given the time and expertise available, others were limited in scope and would impact only a few students. NSF concluded that the proposals might improve if grant applicants became more familiar with existing high-quality projects in education and outreach. Outreach is no easy task, but successful models can make the goal of designing new programs much easier and those who are aware of the models are more likely to avoid the common pitfalls. It therefore asked the National Research Council to organize a Workshop on Integrating Education in Biocomplexity Research to bring together scientists with biocomplexity-related grants and scientists involved in designing, managing, or evaluating education and outreach activities.

The workshop was held on April 15-16, 2002. A planning group arranged the workshop, identified topics and speakers, and developed the agenda but did not participate in the writing of this summary. The author of the summary is Bridget K.B. Avila, who was not a member of the planning group.

This summary was prepared to synthesize the ideas that emerged from the gathering and to provide additional guidance to scientists on communicating the broader context of their work to students, teachers, and the general public.

This work shop summary was enhanced by the contributions of many individuals who graciously offered their time, expertise, and knowledge. The planning group thanks all who attended and/or participated in the workshop (see Appendix B for biographies of planning group and workshop speakers).

This summary has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published summary as sound as possible and to ensure that the summary meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential. We thank the following individuals for their review of this summary:

Juliann Allison, University of California, Riverside

Alan Berkowitz, Institute for Environmental Modeling

Mary Colvard, New York State Department of Education

Diane Ebert-May, Michigan State University

Louis Gross, University of Tennessee

Richard Norgaard, University of California, Berkeley

Although the reviewers listed above have provided constructive comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this summary was overseen by Robert R. Sokal of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this summary was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this summary rests entirely with the institution.