STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD C. ATKINSON, DIRECTOR, Dr. ATKINSON. I would like to make a few brief remarks. As you indicated, I have been here now 5 years almost to the day. The first committee that I dealt with was this committee in the summer of 1975. It was my first exposure to the Congress and my first training with the Congress. I am reminded of some of your previous subcommittee chairmen: Mr. Symington, Mr. Thornton; now you, Mr. Brown. I think all of you have provided remarkable leadership. I have always found working both with the members of this committee and the staff to be a very valuable and beneficial experience. The summer of 1975 was a bleak period in terms of Federal funding for science. We hit a high point in 1967 and things really dropped off from 1967 to 1975. I have had the opportunity of being here in Washington first under President Ford and now under President Carter who have had a very strong commitment to providing support for science and technology in the Nation. That position has been expressed by some real increases in Federal support for these activities. I want to point out that NSF is a remarkable organization. It is very innovative and tends to respond quickly to opportunities. I could mention many examples, but I am reminded in particular of the submicron facility, the industry-university cooperative research programs, and some very excellent programs regarding women and minority scientists. My only unhappiness in the latter area is that we have not been able to do more. I think there is another feature of NSF that should be noted. This is the excellence of the staff. In large part, this is due to the fact that approximately 20 percent of our core scientific staff are rotators, that is, scientists who leave their universities or laboratories for 1 or 2 years and serve as program officers in the Foundation. The staff is excellent and the rotators keep us on our toes. I can assure you that we are as innovative as an agency might be. I also want to comment on the peer review process. The first hearings that I participated in before this committee after coming to NSF, were with regard to the peer review process. I am convinced more than ever before that that is one of the cornerstones of effective decisionmaking in science. On the other hand, I don't think there is any fixed definition for what the peer review process is. You will note that we have made a large number of changes in the peer review process in the last 5 years. I think the hearings before this committee were very important in bringing some of these issues into focus. I would like to introduce into the record the statement headed, Summary of Changes to the National Science Foundation Peer Review Procedures since June of 1975. [The summary of changes follows:] SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO NSF PEER REVIEW PROCEDURES SINCE JUNE 1975 In chronological order, the important changes which have been made in peer review procedures since June 1975 are as follows: 1. Expeditious proposal processing.-Policy requiring review and decision on all proposals within nine months of receipt was established by O/D 75-51 on November 17, 1975. Exemptions may be made by the cognizant Assistant Director for sufficient cause. This policy is now stated in Circular 138 (October 1, 1977). 2. Reconsideration.-A formal process for reconsideration of declined proposals was established in January 1976. It provides for a three-stage procedure involving explanations by the responsible program officer, reconsideration by the cognizant Assistant Director, and, at the request of the principal investigator and the President or Chief Executive Officer of the applicant institution, a further reconsideration by the Deputy Director. This policy was first promulgated in Important Notice 61, and is currently stated in Important Notice 76 and Circular 127 (Revision 1, October 2, 1979). 3. Verbatim, anonymous reviews.—In early 1976, NSF established the policy of providing principal investigators, on request, with verbatim copies of all peer reviews of their proposals. These copies are provided without identifying the reviewer or the reviewer's institution. They are furnished only to the principal investigators, not to administrators or other persons. Circular 132 (Revision 1, February 9, 1979) states this policy, which was originally promulgated by O/D 76-10, dated February 13, 1976. 4. Guidelines to program officers.-Specific guidelines for managing the peer review process, which implement criteria adopted by the National Science Board, were provided to program officers in O/D 76-11 on February 15, 1976. They are currently stated in Circular 132 (Revision 1, February 9, 1979). 5. External program oversight.-In April 1977, following extensive discussion with the National Science Board, the Foundation initiated external oversight of programs. The policy requires that each program be reviewed at least once every three years, using existing advisory committees supplemented as necessary by experts. A sample of proposal and grant files is selected, and an assessment made of the adequacy of the reviews, the appropriateness of the reviewers selected, the adequacy of the documentation and justification of the decision to fund or decline, and the overall scientific quality of the projects supported. Circular 147 (January 17, 1979) currently states this policy, which was first established by O/D 77-17 (April 27, 1977). 6. Office of audit and oversight.-The establishment of the Office of Audit and Oversight was announced on September 16, 1977, by O/D 77-41. In addition to general audit responsibilities, this office is charged with ensuring that peer review procedures are properly followed throughout the foundation. 7. Conflict of interest.—Specific guidance on the handling of conflict of interest by NSF staff and by peer reviewers is contained in Circular 139 (January 9, 1978). The policy requires that program officers and peer reviewers dealing with proposals indicate that they have no academic affiliation or financial interests which might bias or appear to bias their decisions, or identify such connections if any exist. 8. Exemptions from peer review.-Certain proposals are appropriately peer reviewed by special procedures or exempted from peer review entirely. Specific policy concerning such cases was established by O/D 78-9 on February 22, 1978. It is currently stated in Circular 132 (Revision 1, February 9, 1979). 9. Recent scientific accomplishments of the principal investigator.-Policy stated Sept. 1, 1978 in O/D 78-23 now requires peer reviewers to consider both the scientific quality and importance of the proposed research, and also the capability and creativity of the principal investigator as evidenced by recent accomplishments. Both factors are to be considered by the peer reviewer and by the program officer in reaching a decision. Other evidence of capability is examined in the case of younger scientists. The policy is currently stated in Circular 132 (Revision 1, dated Feb. 9, 1979). 10. Fifteen page limit.-Since 1978, the Foundation has required that research proposals not exceed 15 pages except in special circumstances. This policy seeks to reduce the paperwork burden on both proposers and reviewers. It is stated in "Grants for Scientific Research" (NSF 78-41A, August 1978), and was officially announced by O/D 78-23 on Sept. 1, 1978. Circular 132 (Revision 1, February 9, 1979) is the current reference. 11. Multiple grants to a principal investigator.—The requirement that each proposal jacket contain a listing of all other Foundation proposals or awards with which a principal investigator is involved was established by O/D 78-28 in October 11, 1978. This information allows the program officer to assess the possible effect of other NSF commitments on a proposed project. 12. Creativity extensions.-A recent change to policy, implemented on a trial basis, allows program officers to extend existing three-year continuing grants two years without additional peer review when there is evidence of outstanding creativity. No more than ten percent of existing three-year grants in any program may be so extended. The purpose is to allow the most effective scientists additional freedom to tackle adventurous "high risk” research questions. This policy is stated in O/D 7936, issued December 6, 1979. Dr. ATKINSON. That summarizes some 12 major changes made in the peer review process-retaining the same basic philosophy but I think strengthening the details of that process. I will tell you that I have been somewhat saddened that the Foundation has not been able to do more in the area of science education. This committee has always been a strong supporter for efforts in that area and I hope that in future years the issue of science education can again receive more attention both from the Congress and from the administration. I also want to comment on the social sciences. There is no question in my mind that if we are going to deal properly with some of the issues in the science and Government that are before us, we are going to have to have a much better base of understanding in the social sciences. I have been somewhat distressed that it has been so hard to convey to the full Congress the basic nature of the work that NSF supports in the social sciences. There is no question in my mind that it is excellent work and that it can bear the closest scrutiny. This committee, of course, has been a special supporter of our efforts, and I want to take note of that. Finally, I think if there is anything that characterizes science today it is that things are changing at an incredible pace. The research in recombinant DNA is an example of that. That was initiated in 1973 with a key role being played by the National Science Foundation. In only a brief period of 7 or 8 years that work has revolutionized our thinking about genetic processes, and equally important, it has led to a whole set of new possibilities for industry. I think that we are going to have to be very careful in the near term future that our institutions are capable of responding in an innovative way to these sorts of changes and to the speed of change that is characterizing the scientific activity. Let me conclude by saying that I have enjoyed working with this committee. I think the review of the "Five-Year Outlook" will be an interesting one. I wish I could be here to hear the full review. Our concern has been to produce a balanced viewpoint regarding opportunities in science and technology over the near term, but there are going to be some groups who will say we have not made a strong enough case for science. There will be other groups that will say we have overemphasized science and technology. I think the thrust of our efforts here has been to try to balance the various factors and come up with a report that could stand careful scrutiny. Again, the peer review process has played a very central role in the development of this report. At the various stages we relied heavily on expert opinion from many different sectors of the society, to critique various parts of the report, and make various conclusions and recommendations. I would argue that this report and future reports, as they improve in character, will depend very much on the nature of the type of peer review process that is applied. Let me conclude by saying that in the last 3 years George Pimentel has served as the Deputy Director of the Foundation. He has been a marvelous friend and colleague. He has done a remarkable job for the Foundation. A number of people have said often in my presence, he is the best Deputy Director the Foundation has ever had. I think there is real truth in that remark. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Atkinson. I did want to pay tribute to the fine job Dr. Pimentel has done and express my regret that you both are leaving. We are doubly troubled at the loss of both of you at the same time. If we could have been more foresightful we probably would have arranged to have you leave at different times. That is another area where we can't always plan as well as we would like. I am sure, however, that because of the strong leadership that you helped to create in the Foundation, we will survive even the loss of two outstanding leaders. I do wish the very best for you, Dr. Pimentel, in your future course also, and very much regret that you have to be leaving at this point. Would you care to offer any comments at this point? I understand you have to be leaving with Dr. Atkinson also. Dr. PIMENTEL. While I am looking forward to my role as a private citizen rather than as Deputy Director of the Foundation, one of the most vivid memories that I will carry back to California from my experience here, will be my impression of the effectiveness of this committee and the others that the National Science Foundation deals with. I am very gratified with the interest, the attentiveness, and the intelligence of the committee and its staff, and impressed by the penetrating insight and concern for the public good you show in considering science and technology policy. I say with deep sincerity, that I know if every congressional committee goes about its business as effectively and conscientiously as this one does, the country is well served. I appreciate the courtesy that you have all shown us as we have tried to explain our work at the Foundation. We have tried to respond to your wishes and the needs of the country in pursuing our responsibilities for science. Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Dr. Pimentel. What is the time constraint? How long will you gentlemen be able to stay? Dr. ATKINSON. I think we would like to leave in about 5 minutes when Dr. Averch starts his testimony. Mr. BROWN. I will ask Mr. Hollenbeck if he would like to use part of that 5 minutes. Mr. HOLLENBECK. Mr. Chairman, I would just very briefly echo your words of thanks and praise for Dr. Atkinson. The members of the minority hope that our terms don't coincide with yours. We have had some very active discussions over the 4 years that I have been on this subcommittee, and I think they have been very productive. I thank you for your efforts. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. BROWN. I was going to recognize the gentleman and make note of the fact that the new Deputy Director is a resident of Pennsylvania and that you should look forward to a close cooperative relationship. Mr. RITTER. I just have all kinds of praises for the performances of Dr. Atkinson and Dr. Pimentel. I wish I had been around here a little bit longer and I hope to be around here a little bit longer. I guess if you go from Washington to San Diego that certainly can't be considered a step down. We look forward to working with you again in your new role as a university administrator and president. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. I am sure we will not be seeing the last of either of them, and I welcome the opportunity to continue the relationhip in another form. Gentlemen, because we do have a rollcall, I think this would be an appropriate time to take a brief recess so that we can vote. I hate to do this to you, Dr. Averch, but I have to ask you to remain until after the rollcall. Dr. AVERCH. I will be glad to. Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will be in recess. [Brief recess.] Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will resume its meeting. Without objection, the full text of the opening statement of the chairman and the ranking minority member will be included in the record. Mr. BROWN. I recognize Mr. Ertel if he has any opening remarks he would like to make. Mr. ERTEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I was not here when Dr. Atkinson was here. I have only served on this committee for about a year and a half. I just wanted to say I found him to be very enlightening, very good at his job as Director of the National Science Foundation and I did want to wish him well in his future endeavor and say San Diego's gain is going to be the U.S. Government's loss. I am sorry he is not here for me to tell him that directly but I hope he will read the comments. Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. Dr. Averch, you may proceed with your statement at this point. I apologize for the delay which has been involved. I want to recognize the fact that in your position as Assistant Director you probably have more to do with the nuts and bolts of this report than any member of the Foundation and we look forward to hearing your recommendations. [Biographical sketch of Dr. Averch follows:] DR. HARVEY AVERCH Dr. Harvey Averch became Assistant Director for Scientific, Technological, and International Affairs (STIA) in June 1977. In this position he is responsible for the development, coordination, direction, and evaluation of programs under the Divisions that comprise STIA: Policy Research and Analysis, Science Resources Studies, International Programs, and Science Information. Dr. Averch joined the National Science Foundation in 1971. He was the first Director of the Division of Social Systems and Human Resources in the Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) Directorate. In 1974 he advanced to the position of Deputy Assistant Director for Analysis and Planning at which time he designed RANN's planning and evaluation system. In 1976 he was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Director for Science Education. Prior to his NSF appointment, Dr. Averch was associated with the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California, for ten years. He served as Senior Staff Economist, Director of Studies on Economic Development in the Philippines, and as Co-Director of the Rand program on Urban Structure and Policy Analysis. He also has taught at |