References

Bailar, B. (2004). A quality profile of the federal research and development surveys. In National Research Council, Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy: Interim Report (Appendix A, pp. 24-67). L. Brown and T. Plewes, Eds. Panel on Research and Development Statistics at the National Science Foundation, Committee on National Statistics. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila (2001). The semantic web: A new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American, May 17.

Blei, D.M, A.Y. Ng, and M.I. Jordan (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:993-1022.

Block, F., and M.R. Keller (2008). Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. National Innovation System 1970-2006. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Available: http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf [accessed November 2009].

Börner, K., C. Chen, and K. Boyack (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (vol. 37, pp. 179-255). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology.

Branscomb, L., and P.E. Auerswald (2001). Taking Technical Risks: How Innovators, Executives, and Investors Manage High-Tech Risks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Branscomb, L., and P.E. Auerswald (2002). Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early-Stage Technology Development. NIST CR 02-841, November. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology. Available: http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr02-841/contents.htm [accessed November 2009].

Broad, W.J. (1997). Study finds public science is pillar of industry. New York Times, May 13.

Bush, V. (1945). Science The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm [accessed November 2009].



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 72
References Bailar, B. (2004). A quality profile of the federal research and development surveys. In National Research Council, Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy: Interim Report (Appendix A, pp. 24-67). L. Brown and T. Plewes, Eds. Panel on Research and Development Statistics at the National Science Foundation, Com- mittee on National Statistics. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Berners-Lee, T., J. Hendler, and O. Lassila (2001). The semantic web: A new form of web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash a revolution of new possibilities. Scientific American, May 17. Blei, D.M, A.Y. Ng, and M.I. Jordan (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3:993-1022. Block, F., and M.R. Keller (2008). Where Do Innovations Come From? Transformations in the U.S. National Innovation System 0­00. Washington, DC: Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Available: http://www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_ come_from.pdf [accessed November 2009]. Börner, K., C. Chen, and K. Boyack (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (vol. 37, pp. 179-255). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science and Technology. Branscomb, L., and P.E. Auerswald (2001). Taking Technical Risks: How Innovators, Execu­ tives, and Investors Manage High­Tech Risks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Branscomb, L., and P.E. Auerswald (2002). Between Invention and Innovation: An Analysis of Funding for Early­Stage Technology Development. NIST CR 02-841, November. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute for Standards and Technology. Available: http:// www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr02-841/contents.htm [accessed November 2009]. Broad, W.J. (1997). Study finds public science is pillar of industry. New York Times, May 13. Bush, V. (1945). Science The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945. htm [accessed November 2009]. 

OCR for page 72
 REFERENCES Cheney, D., and J. Park (2005). Task Order 0: Panel Meeting to Provide Guidance on SRS’s Evaluation of Its Science and Engineering Taxonomies. Final Summary Report. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Congressional Research Service (2000). Challenges in Collecting and Reporting Federal Research and Development Data. M. Davey and R. Rowberg, Eds. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Executive Office of the President (2005). FY 2009 Administration Research and Develop- ment Priorities. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. August 14. Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC. Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (1980). Report on Statistical Uses of Admin­ istrative Records. Working Paper No. 6, December. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Fossum, D., L. Painter, V. Williams, A. Yezril, E. Newton, and D. Trinkle (2000). Discovery and Innovation: Federal Research and Development Activities in the Fifty States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Godin, B. (2005). The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analyti­ cal Framework. Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics. Working Paper No. 30. Available: http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_30.pdf [accessed November 2009]. Griffiths, T.L., and M. Steyvers (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(Suppl. 1):5228-5235. Hjørland, B. (2008). Core classification theory: A reply to Szostak. Journal of Documenta­ tion, 64(3):333-342. Klavans, R., and K. Boyack (2009). Toward a consensus map of science. Journal of the Ameri­ can Society for Information Science and Technology 60(3):455-476. Klein, J.T. (1996). Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Klein, J.T. (2009). T he Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. Available: http://www. ndsciencehumanitiespolicy.org/oup2/itoc/KleinTaxonomy.pdf [accessed November 2009]. Lattuca, L. (2001). Creating Interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching Among College and University Faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lenoir, T., and C. Beghtol (2004). Guiding Principles for Classification in Practice. Presenta- tion at panel meeting to provide guidance on SRS’s evaluation of its field of science and engineering taxonomies, National Science Foundation, October 12, Arlington, VA. Leshner, A. (2004). Science at the leading edge. Science 303(5659):729. Macro International (2008). Fields of Science and Engineering Taxonomy Study. Calverton, MD: Macro International. Marburger, J. (2005). Wanted: Better benchmarks. Science 308(5725, May):1087. Mervis, J. (1997). Databases: RaDiUS draws a bead on U.S. R&D. Science 278(5342):1392. National Institutes of Health (2009). NIH Roadmap for Medical Research. Available: http:// nihroadmap.nih.gov/ [accessed November 2009]. National Research Council (1986a). An Overview: Physics Through the 0’s. Physics Survey Committee, Board on Physics and Astronomy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1986b). Scientific Interfaces and Technological Applications. Physics Survey Committee, Board on Physics and Astronomy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1990). Interdisciplinary Research: Promoting Collaboration Between the Life Sciences and Medicine and the Physical Sciences and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

OCR for page 72
 DATA ON FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS National Research Council (1995). Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (1999). Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Com­ puting Research. Science and Telecommunications Board. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2000). Measuring the Science and Engineering Enterprise: Priori­ ties for the Division of Science Resources Studies. Committee to Assess the Portfolio of the Division of Science Resources Studies of NSF. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council (2003). Assessing Research­Doctorate Programs: A Methodology Study. Policy and Global Affairs Division. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (2005a). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (2005b). Measuring Research and Development Expenditures in the U.S. Economy. Panel on Research and Development Statistics at the National Science Foundation, Committee on National Statistics. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (2006). Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields. Research Doc- torate Programs, Board on Higher Education and Workforce. Available: http://sites. nationalacademies.org/PGA/Resdoc/PGA_044522 [accessed November 2009]. National Research Council (2007a). The National Science Foundation’s Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program: Looking Back, Moving Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council (2007b). Understanding Business Dynamics. Panel on Measuring Business Formation, Dynamics, and Performance, Committee on National Statistics. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Board (2001). Federal Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities. NSB 01-156. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Board (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators 00. (Volume 1, NSB 06-01; Volume 2, NSB 06-02). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation (1999). Report on the NSF Agency Workshop on Federal R&D. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation (2008a). Federal R&D funding down in FY 2007. InfoBrief, Division of Science Resources Statistics, February. National Science Foundation (2008b). Federal S&E Obligations to Academic Institutions Reach New Highs in FY 00 but Fail to Keep Up with Inflation. NSF 08-316, Division of Science Resources Statistics, October. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. National Science Foundation (2008c). Science of Science and Innovation Policy, FY 00 Pro­ gram Solicitation. NSF 08-586. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08586/nsf08586.htm [accessed November 2009]. National Science Foundation (2009a). FY 2008 data show downward trend in federal R&D funding. Info Brief, Table 1, NSF 09-309, January. National Science Foundation (2009b). Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universi­ ties, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 00. NSF 09-210, March. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

OCR for page 72
 REFERENCES National Science and Technology Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy (2008). The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap. Report on the Science of Science Policy to the Subcommittee on Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, Committee on Science. November. Available: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/ NSTC%20Reports/39924_PDF%20Proof.pdf [accessed November 2009]. Office of Science and Technology Policy (2006). The Science of Science Policy: A Federal Research Roadmap. Washington, DC: National Science and Technology Council. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002). Frascati Manual 00: Pro­ posed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Paskin, N. (2009). Digital Object Identifier system. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences. London: Taylor & Francis Group. Petrie, H.G. (1976). Do you see what I see? The epistemology of interdisciplinary inquiry. Educational Researcher 5(2):9-15. Porter, A.L., J.D. Roessner, A.S. Cohen, and M. Perreault (2006). Interdisciplinary research: Meaning, metrics, nurture. Research Evaluation 15(3):187-195. Rhoten, D. (2003). Final Report, National Science Foundation BCS­0: A Multi­Method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. San Francisco: Hybrid Vigor Institute. Rossini, F.A., and A.L. Porter (1978). Frameworks for integrating interdisciplinary research. Research Policy 8:70-79. Ruttan, V. (2006). Is War Necessary for Economic Growth? Military Procurement and Tech­ nology Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Sarewitz, D. (2007). Does science policy matter? Issues in Science and Technology, Sum- mer. Available: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200707/ai_n19511079/ pg_6/?tag=content;col1 [accessed November 2009]. Shiffrin, R., and K. Börner (2004). Mapping knowledge domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 101(Suppl 1, April). Smelser, N. (2003). Interdisciplinarity in theory and practice. In C. Camic and H. Joas (Eds.), The Dialogical Turn: New Roles for Sociology in the Postdisciplinary Age. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Solow, R. (1987). Growth theory: An exposition, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Touhy. R.V. (1998). How the Department of Defense utilizes federal funds survey data. In National Science Foundation, Report on the NSF Agency Workshop on Federal R&D. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (1979). Recommendation concerning the international standardization of statistics on science and technology. In Records of the General Conference, 0th Session, Paris,  October to  November , Volume  (pp. 27-28). Paris: UNESCO. Available: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ ev.php-URL_ID=13135&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [accessed September 2009]. U.S. Department of Commerce (2008). Innovation Measurement—Tracking the State of Innovation in the American Economy. A report to the Secretary of Commerce by the Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy. Available: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/innovation_measurement_11808.pdf [accessed November 2009].

OCR for page 72
 DATA ON FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005). Improvements Needed to the Federal Pro­ curement Data System—Next Generation. GAO-05-960R, September 27. Available: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05960r.pdf [accessed November 2009]. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (1978). Directive No. , Standard Classification of Fields of Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2002). Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies. Notice: Re-publication. February 22. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (2006). OMB Guidance on Data Submission under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Transparency Act). M-08-04, November 9. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. U.S. Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy (2009). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Science and Tech­ nology Priorities for the FY 0 Budget. M-09-27, August 4. Available: http://www. whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-27.pdf [accessed November 2009]. Van Raan, A.F.J. (1996). The interdisciplinary nature of science: Theoretical framework and 1996). ibliometric-empirical approach. In P. Weingart and N. Stehr, Eds., Practising Interdisci­ plinarity (pp. 66-78). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Wagner, C., and L. Leydesforff (2005). Network structure, self-organization and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10):1608-1618. Yasitis, A., S. Zecher, S. Shackleford, and E. Kim (2004). Interdisciplinary Research Funding Patterns: An Analysis of the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy. Policy Analysis Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology, November 14.