The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) proposes a review of the NSF active Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships as a program. The review will focus on the ``value added`` of the STCs, i.e., what these centers provide that individual investigator research does not, and would characterize the STC portfolio, not individual centers. Our aim is to appraise the collective impact of the STCs on the conduct of academic research?upon individual faculty and students and upon universities; the range of disciplines that constitute the research foci of the centers; and the progress of the scientific enterprise in creating and nurturing new (inter)disciplines.
Intellectual Merit AAAS proposes this review for several reasons. First, the STC program as a totality has been reviewed only once in its history. The 17 centers launched in 2000, 2002, and 2005-06 have never been subject to a program review. Second, within NSF and outside NSF, expectations and requirements concerning the need for evidence of program impacts have intensified. Third, and most important, are compelling intellectual reasons: (a) new understanding of the course of scientific discovery and progress, including increased attention to the presence of competing theories and research priorities in the initial phase of what over time comes to be seen as dominant paradigms in which discipline evolve; (b) increased appreciation for the interaction among advances in theory, experimentation, and instrumentation; and (c) conjectures about the selective contribution that patrons of science-corporations and private foundations as well as federal agencies-make to the direction and pace at which some research trajectories flourish.
Broader Impacts The project will address additional outcomes from the conduct of research created through the mechanism of investing in STCs: (1)to inform NSF, and thus provide a management tool for investment of public funds. (2) At the same time, the STCs constitute a high-profile program and investment in team science. Capturing and clarifying these impacts demands metrics related to the consumers of knowledge, products and other benefits. Capturing and clarifying these impacts demands metrics related to the consumers of knowledge, products and other benefits. Howe can differences in outcomes be traced to STC processes and research impacts, and in turn provide insights into the federal investment process while demonstrating accountability. The STCs are challenged to demonstrate leadership in fostering participation in groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering. Thus, should this mechanisms be found to have significant added value in the ways investigated, there will be lessons to share on how the mechanisms of investments affect the diversity of performers and the character of their work. The site www.aas.org , as well as the Research Competitive Program and Capacity Center sites, will be used to highlight the project and the results. We will disseminate the report findings to the STCs, the policy community (in peer-reviewed outlets such as Research Evaluation, Research Policy, and Science and Public Policy), and all interested in research partnerships, management, and evaluation. Finally, presentations of lessons learned may be instructive to agencies when aiming for certain goals and building portfolios.
The NSF Science & Technology Centers Integrative Partnerships program supports universities, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and others that join together to create new multidisciplinary research centers. From nanobiotechnology to microbial oceanography, the AAAS report concludes, the centers successfully pursue innovative basic science while promoting its applications to larger societal issues. The AAAS report analyzed the work of 17 centers funded in three grant competitions held between 1998 and 2005-06. In fiscal year 2010, NSF spent $57.77 million on the 17 centers. Key findings include: Transformative research. The centers have encouraged the development of new technologies, new instrumentation, and new approaches to pressing societal challenges such as water use and cybersecurity. Wider collaborations. Faculty at the centers engage in more interdisciplinary, problem-oriented research than many of their peers, and publish in a wider variety of journals. University participants also said that the centers had encouraged more contacts with industry, and facilitated a shifting set of partnerships over time. Expanding workforce.The centers have an excellent track record of producing new masters’ and Ph.D. students for the science and engineering workforce. But they have a more mixed record on their outreach to K-12 education, with many centers unsure how to incorporate this outreach into their overall program goals. Growing diversity The centers have had "modest" success in bringing individuals who have been underrepresented historically in sciences and engineering to campus. Once enrolled, however, women and minorities make up a larger percentage of the centers than they do in the individual science disciplines that contribute to the centers’ research. This last element might prove to be one of the most important outcomes of the NSF program. The centers represent an opportunity to change the face of the U.S. science and engineering workforce, and could be its legacy of transformation.
