The National Science Foundation's Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program Looking Back, Moving Forward (2007) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Overview
Overview
Pages 7-28
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 7... ...
Assess the performance and impact of the National Science Foundation's Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers program (MRSEC program)
|
From page 8... ...
The first serious effort to induce group activity in academic materials research occurred when NSF assumed responsibility for the IDLs in 1972. Searching for some structure that would distinguish these block-funded, locally managed entities from the NSF-funded individual research on similar topics, NSF instituted the idea of Materials Research Laboratories (MRLs)
|
From page 9... ...
At the same time, the budget for the MRL/MRSEC program increased from approximately $29 million per year (as-spent dollars) in 1993 to $44.28 million per year in 1996.
|
From page 10... ...
If the MRSEC program specifically enables group-based re search, are the research results distinguishable from those developed by individual investigators? Or perhaps MRSECs enable research at a different phase of the overall progress in advancing the frontiers of materials science and engineering.
|
From page 11... ...
Although many of these measures are indicators of correlation and not causation, the committee came to believe that the research program enabled by MRSEC awards has been, in general, at least as effective as that enabled by other mechanisms. Conclusion: Overall, the MRSEC program produces excellent, frontier sci ence of the same high standard as that supported by NSF through other
|
From page 12... ...
Since most publications acknowledge multiple sponsors, it is not possible to prove that MRSEC funding yields leadership in discoveries, publications, or citations in materials research. The lack of objectively quantifiable differences in research productivity or impact suggests that the unique value of the MRSEC pro gram is in its broader impact to the local and national materials communities.
|
From page 13... ...
Conclusion: The MRSEC program offers one of the principal opportunities in materials research to support shared experimental facilities (SEFs) that include not only equipment but also the personnel to provide training for students and to perform maintenance.
|
From page 14... ...
Research-related education and outreach activities leverage MRSEC strengths and expertise. MRSECs can provide unique opportunities for interdisciplinary 4See National Science Foundation, "Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activi ties," 2002, available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf.
|
From page 15... ...
There is a perception that the demands of the EO program have grown significantly since the original inception of the MRSEC program. While the requests for proposals for the program show most growth in demands, the broad portfolio of activities, even in the smallest MRSECs, suggests that MRSEC resources are being spread too thinly and that the impact of those resources is being diminished.
|
From page 16... ...
The committee believes that EO is an important part of the MRSEC program but that steps can be taken to increase its effectiveness. In particular: • MRSECs should focus on a limited number of activities that are aligned with MRSEC research goals, are consistent with the MRSEC size, leverage participant expertise and interest, and address local needs.
|
From page 17... ...
Recommendation: NSF should provide appropriate guidance to MRSEC ap plicants and reviewers in order to refocus education and outreach activities and ensure the program's effectiveness. It is evident to the committee that there is a multiplicity of EO activities in the MRSEC program, and that the lack of guidance from NSF to the MRSECs and reviewers has contributed to what appears to have become a less productive enterprise than it could be.
|
From page 18... ...
Although some centers had an existing campus culture that already sup ported industrial outreach activities, other MRSECs had to create a culture of industrial outreach to respond to program requirements. As a result, all centers had substantial outreach efforts that added significant value to the overall program.
|
From page 19... ...
This leveraging is valuable to the MRSEC program in meeting its goals, but it makes assessing the effectiveness of the industrial outreach program more difficult to judge as a function of MRSEC resources supporting the effort. Conclusion: The importance given industrial collaboration and technology transfer in the review process is seen as not being commensurate with the importance of this program goal.
|
From page 20... ...
Recommendation: NSF should establish metrics for evaluating the effec tiveness of industrial collaboration and technology transfer. In addition to considering worldwide best practices, NSF should quantify the relative importance of industrial outreach and knowledge transfer relative to other program requirements in program solicitations.
|
From page 21... ...
Conclusion: The committee examined the performance and impact of MRSEC activities over the past decade in the areas of research, facilities, edu cation and outreach, and industrial collaboration and technology transfer. The MRSEC program has had important impacts of the same high standard of quality as those of other multi-investigator or individual-investigator programs.
|
From page 22... ...
Individual MRSECs also leverage these funds through institutional commitments, user fees for shared experimental facilities, and/or industrial and state support. An "average NSF budget" for a current MRSEC can be determined from these figures: Average Annual Category MRSEC Spending Interdisciplinary Research Groups $1,260,000 Seeds 200,000 Education and Outreach 200,000 Facilities 220,000 Industrial Outreach 40,000 Administration 80,000 Total $2 million Compounded by the decrease in spending power estimated using an approxi mate but realistic university inflation index developed by the committee in the subsection entitled "NSF and the Division of Materials Research" in Chapter 2, the average MRSEC can now undertake only about 70 percent of the effort that it un dertook in 1996, and only 40 percent of the effort that an MRL could undertake in 1993.
|
From page 23... ...
Another decade of similar decreases will undermine the ability of the MRSEC program to make valuable contributions in the future. Conclusion: The effectiveness of MRSECs has been reduced in recent years as a result of increasing requirements without a commensurate increase in resources.
|
From page 24... ...
Conclusion: The MRSEC program needs to evolve in order to successfully meet its objectives in the coming decade. To do so, the National Science Foundation must restructure the program to reduce requirements, reduce the number of MRSEC awards, and/or increase the total funding of the MRSEC program while preserving its positive elements.
|
From page 25... ...
Additional resources and the restructuring indicated above could produce significant additional value. Born from the MRL program, the MRSEC program represented the next step in an evolutionary process for centers-based research in materials.
|
From page 26... ...
And materi als research has continued to mature as a discipline. The MRSEC program can be positioned to better facilitate research advances in the next decade by improving the focus of its resources on targeted, specific objectives and by increasing its flex ibility to allow specialization for the strengths of individual centers.
|
From page 27... ...
There is tremendous opportunity to be realized if the MRSECs operate with greater cooperation and synergy. MRSECs largely conduct their industrial outreach programs completely independently of other MRSEC programs.
|
From page 28... ...
Looking forward, the formulation of the MRSEC program needs to evolve to take advantage of a new generation of scientific progress and discovery. Group based research has become an established element of the DMR portfolio, and the MRSEC program should focus on empowering small, nimble research groups as well as larger infrastructure nodes with their own competitive research teams.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.