ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES

Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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 R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION AND FACILITIES Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING, AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-09701-0 International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-09701-7 Available from the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 202-334-2807; Internet, http://www.nationalacademies.org/cosepup. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities COMMITTEE ON ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTRUMENTATION MARTHA KREBS (Chair), Director, Energy R&D Division, California Energy Commission, Los Angeles, California DAVID BISHOP, President, New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium; Nanotechnology Research VP, Lucent Tech–Bell Labs, Murray Hill, New Jersey MARVIN CASSMAN, Independent Consultant, San Francisco, California ULRICH DAHMEN, Director, National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California THOM H. DUNNING, JR., Director, National Center for Supercomputing Applications; Professor of Chemistry and Distinguished Chair for Research Excellence, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois MARILYN L. FOGEL, Staff Member, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC LESLIE KOLODZIEJSKI, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts ALVIN KWIRAM, Professor of Chemistry, Vice Provost for Research Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington WARREN S. WARREN, Ralph W. Dornte Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University; Director, New Jersey Center for Molecular and Biomolecular Imaging, Princeton, New Jersey DANIEL F. WEILL, Retired, Eugene, Oregon Principal Project Staff DEBORAH STINE, Study Director RACHEL COURTLAND, Research Associate and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow NEERAJ P. GORKHALY, Senior Program Assistant SHADEEQUA MILLER, Program Assistant RICHARD YEH, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow KELLY KROEGER, Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellow NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY MAXINE F. SINGER (Chair), President Emerita and Senior Scientific Advisor to CASE, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC UMA CHOWDHRY, Vice President, Central Research and Development, DuPont Company, Wilmington, Delaware RALPH J. CICERONE (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC R. JAMES COOK, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington HAILE DEBAS, Executive Director, Global Health Sciences, Maurice Galante Distinguished Professor of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California HARVEY FINEBERG (Ex officio), President, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC MARYE ANNE FOX (Ex officio), Chancellor, University of California, San Diego, California ELSA GARMIRE, Professor, School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire M.R.C. GREENWOOD (Ex officio), Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, University of California, Oakland, California NANCY HOPKINS, Amgen Professor of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WILLIAM H. JOYCE (Ex officio), Chairman and CEO, Nalco, Naperville, Illinois MARY-CLAIRE KING, American Cancer Society Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington W. CARL LINEBERGER, Professor of Chemistry, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado RICHARD A. MESERVE, President, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC ROBERT M. NEREM, Parker H. Petit Professor and Director, Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia ANNE PETERSEN, Senior Vice President, Programs, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Michigan CECIL PICKETT, President, Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, New Jersey

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Professor and Chair, Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York HUGO SONNENSCHEIN, Charles L. Hutchinson Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois SHEILA E. WIDNALL, Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts WM. A. WULF (Ex officio), President, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC MARY LOU ZOBACK, Senior Research Scientist, Earthquake Hazards Team, US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Staff RICHARD BISSELL, Executive Director DEBORAH STINE, Associate Director LAUREL HAAK, Program Officer MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Coordinator CRAIG REED, Financial Associate

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Preface Forty years ago, Congress asked the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP)—the only joint policy committee of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine—to look at the relationship between basic research and national goals. That request, from the House Committee on Science and Astronautics in 1964, resulted in the report Basic Research and National Goals.1 One essay in the report pointed out that a side effect of heavy investment in large research facilities is the large cost of operation and maintenance. Another essay addressed the issue of rising cost: The costs of scientific research are steadily increasing. It is true that, with the efficient instruments we now have, problems that appeared very formidable many years ago can be solved in a matter of days instead of years, and thus much more cheaply. But we are concerned today with much more difficult problems. These require the full efforts of our investigators aided by the most modern instrumentation. It is the solution of the easy problems and the necessity for facing more difficult ones that makes research more expensive each year.2 1 Kaysen, C. Allocating federal support for basic research. In Basic Research and National Goals. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1965, pp. 147-167. 2 Kistiakowsky, G. B. Allocating support for basic research—and the importance of practical applications. In Basic Research and National Goals. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1965, pp. 169-188.

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Remarkably little has changed since that time, as COSEPUP now responds to a 21st century congressional request for guidance on the issue of instrumentation. This study is in response to a request from Congress in Section 13(b) of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002, which reads as follows: NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ASSESSMENT ON INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION CENTERS. Assessment—Not later than 3 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to assess the need for an interagency program to establish and support fully equipped, state-of-the-art university-based centers for interdisciplinary research and advanced instrumentation development. Transmittal to Congress.—Not later than 15 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director shall transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate the assessment conducted by the National Academy of Sciences together with the Foundation’s reaction to the assessment authorized under paragraph (1). A wide array of universities have expressed concerns to Congress in recent years as to the challenge of investing in and finding support for advanced instrumentation used in scientific, engineering, and medical research. The universities highlighted an interest in and a need for the centralization of research equipment on their campuses, but they lacked the resources for that. The desire for concentrating resources has grown as advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) has grown more powerful, has required additional support, and has been increasingly used by researchers in many fields. Another concern of universities is the potential for direct federal allocation of funds to particular institutions, regions, and fields due to the lack of federal ARIF programs, which can lead to federal support for facilities that are not peer-reviewed and not cost effective. In January 2004, NSF contacted COSEPUP about conducting this study. Staff of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Science were consulted, and they agreed that a committee addressing the issue should respond to the following questions: What are the current programs and policies of the major federal research agencies for advanced research instrumentation? What is the current status of advanced midsized research instrumentation on university campuses? How are such instruments currently designed, built, funded, operated, and maintained?

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities What challenges do federal agencies and universities identify regarding such instruments? Would an interagency program to fund midsized advanced research instruments that are used by researchers funded by many agencies help respond to these challenges? If so, what should be the components of such a program? Are sufficient federal programs available to provide the intellectual and financial resources necessary to develop new midsized instruments that respond to research community needs? What federal policies could be put into place to enhance the design, building, funding, sharing, operations, and maintenance of mid-sized advanced research instruments? The committee would propose policies, if needed, to make the most effective use of federal resources to fund such instruments. The instruments are and would be in a broad spectrum of academic institutions. COSEPUP appointed the Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation to respond to the call from Congress. The charge to the committee defines ARIF as instrumentation and collections of instrumentation that are supported by neither the NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program nor the NSF Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. By that definition, ARIF is distinguished by capital costs ranging from $2 million to several tens of millions of dollars. A more comprehensive definition of ARIF is put forth by the committee in Chapter 2 of this report. The committee includes all scientific and engineering research fields—including the physical sciences, life sciences, engineering, and social sciences—within the scope of the study. This study is intended to complement a request in Section 13(a) of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 for NSF to “conduct a review and assessment” of the MRI program. The MRI program largely excludes support of the instrumentation discussed in this report, although it is capable of partially funding ARIF. NSF is involved in a 5-year effort to design and implement a method for collecting data on science and engineering research instrumentation as part of its study. The present report also complements two other recent COSEPUP reports that address related issues. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation3 examined NSF’s MREFC account and recommended that the National Science Board (NSB) oversee a process whereby NSF 3 National Research Council. Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004.

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities LOUISA KOCH, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration JOHN H. MARBURGER, Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy MICHAEL MARRON, Associate Director, Division of Biomedical Technology, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health WILLIAM OLBRICHT, Professor, Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Cornell University RAY ORBACH, Director, Office of Science, Department of Energy NATHANIEL PITTS, Director, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation DONALD TENNANT, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, New Jersey Nanotechnology Consortium and Lucent Technologies We would also like to thank those we interviewed (in alphabetical order): RICHARD A. BEHNKE, Section Head, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation WILLIAM O. (BILL) BERRY, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense DRAGANA BRZAKOVIC, Staff Associate, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation PETER A. FREEMAN, Assistant Director, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation PAUL HERTZ, Assistant Associate Administrator for Science, National Aeronautics and Space Administration DAVID LAMBERT, Program Director, Instrumentation and Facilities, National Science Foundation MICHAEL MARRON, Associate Director, Division of Biomedical Technology, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health ANN MORIMIZU, Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation in Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security MURIEL E. POSTON, Deputy Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure, National Science Foundation ROBERT M. ROBINSON, Program Manager, Division of Atmospheric Sciences, National Science Foundation DAVID RUST, Program Planning Administrator, US Department of Agriculture GERALD B. SELZER, Program Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure, National Science Foundation

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities MARJORIE TINGLE, Health Scientist Administrator, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health THOMAS A. WEBER, Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation ROBERT M. WELLEK, Division of Chemical and Transport Systems, Directorate for Engineering, National Science Foundation Thanks go to institutions that responded to the survey (in alphabetical order): Arkansas, Little Rock, University of Arkansas, University of Auburn University Boston College Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California, Berkeley, University of California, Irvine, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Riverside, University of Carnegie Institution of Washington Cincinnati, University of Colorado, Boulder, University of Dartmouth University Idaho State University Illinois, Chicago, University of Iowa State University Kansas Center for Research, University of Kansas University Medical Center Lehigh University Loma Linda University Maine, University of Marquette University Maryland, Baltimore County, University of Maryland, College Park, University of Massachusetts, Boston, University of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Michigan State University Minnesota, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, University of

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities New Mexico State University New York, State University of North Carolina, Greensboro, University of Northern Illinois University Oakland University Ohio State University Pennsylvania State University Princeton University Purdue University Rice University Rutgers University San Diego State University Syracuse University Tennessee, University of Texas A&M-Health Science Center Texas, Austin, University of Washington State University Washington University, St. Louis Wayne State University Wisconsin-Madison, University of We also thank the following national laboratories and research centers for their informative responses to our survey: Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Center for Microanalysis of Materials, Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Laboratory of Membrane Biochemistry and Biophysics, National Institute on Alcohol and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oak Ridge National Laboratory Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities In addition, we thank the disciplinary societies that responded to our survey. Note that staff from some of the disciplinary societies responded to the survey as individuals with a broad view of the status and needs of their field and not as representatives of their society. The disciplinary societies are (in alphabetical order): American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Physical Society Division of Condensed Matter Physics Division of Particles and Fields American Political Science Association American Society for Mass Spectrometry American Society of Plant Biologists Federation of Materials Societies The committee also thanks the individual researchers who responded to our survey. Without their input in addition to the input from institutions, this report would not have been possible. Next, we would like to thank the reviewers of this report. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ 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 report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Jerry Bridges, Johns Hopkins University; Richard Carlson, Carnegie Institution of Washington; Deborah Estrin, University of California; David Featherman, University of Michigan; Timothy Krabach, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Mark Lively, Wake Forest University; William Olbricht, Cornell University; Mark Oreglia, University of Chicago; Manijeh Razeghi, Northwestern University; and Alfred Redfield, Brandeis University. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Pierre Hohenberg, New York University, and R. James Cook (Retired), Washington State University. Appointed by the National

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Academies, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. We thank Maxine Singer, the chair of COSEPUP, and W. Carl Lineberger, chair of the guidance group that oversaw this project, which included W. CARL LINEBERGER (Guidance Group Chair), Professor of Chemistry, University of Colorado ELSA M. GARMIRE, Professor, Dartmouth College GERALD M. RUBIN, Vice President for Biomedical Research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute MAXINE SINGER, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution of Washington Finally, we thank the staff for this project, including Deborah Stine, Associate Director of COSEPUP and study director, who managed the project; Rachel Courtland, research associate and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow, who helped to turn the committee’s thoughts into words; Neeraj P. Gorkhaly, senior program assistant, who provided project support; and Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellows Richard Yeh and Kelly Kroeger, who helped to provide research and analytic support for the committee.

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Contents     SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   7      Historical Roots,   7      How Is Instrumentation Different Today in Its Use?,   12      Overview of Report,   13      Findings,   13 2   INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUMENTATION   15      What Is Instrumentation, and Why Is It Important?,   15      What Is “Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities”?,   16      Examples of ARIF,   19      Imaging Technologies: From Physics to Biology,   20      High-Speed Sequencers and the Human Genome Project,   24      Cybertools,   28      Distributed Advanced Research Instrumentation Systems,   32      Tools for Integrated Circuits,   34      Nanotechnology,   35      Tools for Space Exploration,   39      Findings,   39      Recommendations,   40

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities 3   INSTRUMENTATION AND UNIVERSITIES   41      Investing in Instrumentation in Universities,   41      Management of Instrumentation in Universities,   44      Cost of Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities,   45      Operation and Maintenance Costs,   47      Space,   48      PhD-Level Technical Research Support Staff,   50      Centralized University Facilities,   50      Instrumentation Funding,   53      Survey Results,   55      Findings,   60      Recommendations,   61 4   FEDERAL AGENCY AND INTERAGENCY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES   63      Historical Overview of Federal Funding of Instrumentation,   63      National Science Foundation Programs and Activities,   64      National Science Board Findings on National Science Foundation Support for Infrastructure,   64      The Major Research Instrumentation Program,   65      The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account,   68      Support for Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities,   69      The Instrumentation for Materials Research– Major Instrumentation Projects Program,   69      Geosciences Support for Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities,   70      National Institutes of Health Programs and Activities,   71      Department of Energy Programs and Activities,   73      Department of Defense Programs and Activities,   74      National Aeronautics and Space Administration Programs and Activities,   74      Department of Homeland Security Programs and Activities,   75      US Department of Agriculture Programs and Activities,   76      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Programs and Activities,   77      Interagency Activities,   77      Federal PhD-Level Technical Research Support Staff Career Development and Support Programs,   80      Summary and Analysis,   80      Findings,   83      Recommendations,   86

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities 5   OVERVIEW OF CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS   89      General Findings,   89      Congressional Charge,   90      Response to Charge Questions,   91      Summary,   97     APPENDIXES          A  Biographical Information on Members and Staff of Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation   101      B  Charge to the Committee   106      C  Summary of Institutional Survey Results   108      D  Summary of Researcher Survey Results   128      E  Summary of Disciplinary Society Survey Results   148      F  Summary of National Laboratory Survey Results   162      G  Selected Bibliography   174

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES   NMR Spectrometer,   22   Magnetic Resonance Imager,   23   X-ray Crystallography,   25   Proteomics,   26   Beamlines,   27   Cyberinfrastructure,   28   Gaussian and the Nobel Prize,   29   Political Science Instrumentation,   30   Earth and Ocean Science Sensor Systems,   32   Composite Instruments,   34   National Nanofabrication Users Network,   36   Electron Microscope,   37   Telescopes and Global Sensors and Infrastructure,   38   Instrumentation and the Challenge of User Fees,   43   Costs and Requirements Associated with an 800 MHz NMR with Cryoprobe,   45   What Are Facilities and Administrative Costs?,   54

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities FIGURES 1-1   National Science Foundation Tools, Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), and Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) budgets, FY 2004-2006,   11 2-1   Historical capability of NMR spectrometers,   21 3-1   Midsize materials science facility operating budgets,   49 3-2   Accumulation of operating costs for a transmission electron microscope,   49 3-3   Number of ARIF reported by institutional survey respondents,   56 3-4   ARIF at institutions, by field,   57 3-5   Major challenges that institutions face with regard to ARIF,   58 3-6   Number of funding sources specified,   58 3-7   Frequency of ARIF capital cost sources of support,   59 3-8   Itemized ARIF, by capital cost,   59 4-1   Major Research Instrumentation program FY 2004 awards by directorate,   67 4-2   Frequency of ARIF capital cost sources of support,   81 4-3   Total ARIF capital cost support, by source,   84 TABLES 1-1   NSF Future Infrastructure Needs, FY 2003-2012,   9 2-1   Examples of ARIF, by Field,   20 4-1   Major Research Instrumentation Program Proposals and Awards,   66 4-2   Federal Agency Programs and Practices for the Support of Instrumentation,   81

OCR for page R1
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities This page intentionally left blank.