Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Policy

The State of Chemistry at NSF

Agency officials discuss current budget, new initiatives, and other challenges facing chemistry

by SUSAN R. MORRISSEY, C&EN WASHINGTON
April 18, 2005 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 83, Issue 16

DIALOGUE
[+]Enlarge
Credit: PHOTO BY SUSAN MORRISSEY
Turner (left) and Ellis meet regularly to touch base about the issues impacting chemistry.
Credit: PHOTO BY SUSAN MORRISSEY
Turner (left) and Ellis meet regularly to touch base about the issues impacting chemistry.

When it comes to funding physical sciences research, the National Science Foundation plays the lead role among the federal agencies. In fact, the agency's Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS)--which includes the Chemistry Division--provides approximately 43% of federally funded basic research at academic institutions in this area; in chemistry specifically, it's responsible for more than a third of the basic research support.

"We have five great divisions within MPS," Turner says, speaking of the Chemistry, Astronomical Sciences, Materials Research, Mathematical Sciences, and Physics Divisions. "Each of the divisions has great opportunities and challenges as well as contributions to make," he says.

Turner notes that each of MPS's units has a different mix of basic and applied research. For example, he explains, at one extreme there is astronomy, which is all about discovery, but where there aren't really any applications.

Chemistry, on the other hand, is "kind of the middle child," Turner notes. "It has not only challenging, intellectually interesting problems, but also problems with important practical applications," he points out.

Even with chemistry's promising applications, it, like all of the physical sciences, is facing a hard-sell period when it comes to funding. "Part of the reason for this is that the opportunities in the biological sciences are just stunning," Turner says. "But that very bright glow sometimes blinds people to the fact that there are still a lot of stunning opportunities in the physical sciences. And those aside, if we are going to realize all of the great opportunities in the biological sciences, we need what the physical sciences have to offer in terms of instrumentation and in terms of knowledge," he explains.

"Fair or not, we have to make our case better than the biological sciences," Turner says, adding that he and Ellis can help, but the physical science community must do its part. One way to help strengthen the case is by prioritizing what research is most critical to moving the science forward.

"If I see a theme in Washington for the next few years, it's that budgets will be very tight," Turner says. That, coupled with the fact that Congress now understands the importance of basic research and wants to get a little more involved, means that researchers must be able to explain what they are doing and why it's important in order to get funding, he explains.

"Just saying, 'Everything is good and if you invest in our work, trust that we will do great things,' " isn't going to work anymore, he says. Congress and funding agencies want to see research priorities, and if individual fields can't set them, someone else will, he warns.

TO AVOID the latter, Ellis has been working hard in developing two priority areas in the chemical sciences. The first is the molecular basis for life processes. This initiative involves, for example, sharpening our understanding of how life processes emerge from networks of interacting chemical reactions, Ellis explains."But before you invest, you really need to ask what are the problems you are trying to solve and are they ripe," Turner says. "If the problem is ripe, then you have to think about where to invest to get the most leverage."

Ellis has been interacting with the chemical community to answer these questions. "The community, through workshops, has identified the science drivers in this area," he says. "That's something that we as a community haven't really done in the past," he points out, adding that this current effort shows that chemical scientists are capable of setting priorities.

Another priority in the early stages of development is sustainability. "Mankind has reached a point where there are enough of us, and we are technologically advanced enough, that we affect the environment," Turner says. These effects fundamentally involve chemistry, and therefore, chemistry will play an important role in finding ways to mitigate the damage being done to the environment, he says.

As Ellis and Turner continue to develop these initiatives, they are also working on their future budgets. "We spend most of the year thinking about budgets," Turner admits. In fact, he has the divisions in MPS carry out budget planning for the next five years to help ensure that project funding is continuous, because once a project is funded, "you can't just put the brakes on instantly," he explains.

Part of the budget planning for MPS is keeping the core science--that is, investigator-initiated basic research--well-funded. According to Turner, keeping the core strong is essential to ensuring that scientists will be able to respond to new opportunities.

This commitment to the core is evidenced by how the Chemistry Division spends its budget. For at least the past four years, the division has spent nearly three-fourths of its budget on core programs. Although the figure dropped slightly in 2004 from 74% to 71% due to the introduction of new programs such as the Chemical Bonding Centers that address big, long-term research challenges in the chemical sciences (C&EN, Oct. 11, 2004, page 33), the division remains strongly committed to core programs.

Cyber-enabled chemistry is one of the core areas in which the Chemistry Division is playing a leadership role. In conjunction with NSF's Shared Cyberinfrastructure Division, Ellis expects the development of databases, data mining tools, molecular visualization and computational capabilities, and remote and networked use of instrumentation, among other things.

"One of our responsibilities here is that when we see something big coming--such as cyber-enabled chemistry--we need to engage the chemistry community," Ellis says. "By working closely with our community, we can help to realize the full potential of such an opportunity," he explains. He recently coauthored an editorial that summarizes a workshop report on cyber-enabled chemistry (C&EN, March 14, page 3).

As the Chemistry Division looks forward, one problem facing it, MPS, and NSF as a whole is that of declining grant success rates, specifically for solicited grants. NSF Director Arden L. Bement has proposed a strategy to improve this situation, which involves reducing the number of grant solicitations.

"The simpleminded interpretation of this idea is that it's smoke and mirrors, where we're not going to give out more money but are going to make it look like we are," Turner says. He notes that NSF uses solicitations to target areas of interest with a specific goal in mind.

Writing the solicitation and preparing the proposal for these targeted awards take a significant amount of time and effort, yet there is only a single-digit success rate in many cases, Turner explains. "We don't want the community to waste their time both writing proposals and being reviewers for such a low success rate," he says.

Turner notes that, short of getting more money to fund more proposals, this plan is not a bad alternative. "It's such an important problem that we are morally obligated to do what we can," he says. And in this case, that means stopping people from chasing solicitations that have a small return rate.

Although tight budgets and the competition for money are difficult challenges for chemistry and the other physical sciences, there is another challenge that Turner believes to be graver. "The number one threat to the physical sciences is that the face of the sciences doesn't look like the face of America," he says.

"We are losing talent," Turner says. "We are solving hard problems in the physical sciences, and we need all kinds of different ideas and approaches" that can only come from a diverse workforce, he explains, adding that the Chemistry Division under Ellis has really taken a leadership role in improving diversity.

AN IMPORTANT way of effecting this change is by targeting programs at universities. "If the face of chemistry Ph.D.s starts to look like the face of America," the workforce will naturally follow, Turner explains.MPS is also looking ahead to a workforce problem of its own: finding a replacement for Ellis. Ellis--who is on loan from the University of Wisconsin, Madison--is in the third year of his four-year stint with the agency.

"We're starting the recruiting process for Art's successor now," Turner notes, adding that the position can be filled by a rotator--a visiting scientist, as was the case for Ellis--or a permanent hire. "The chemistry community is in really good hands with Art, and it's important to find someone who can take the baton from him," he says.

In the end, managing the interests of chemistry at NSF is all about balancing what needs to be done with the resources at hand. "It would be great to have more resources," Ellis says, echoing Turner, "but it's important for the community to realize that, rounded to one significant figure, we still have about $200 million, and we are going to do some very good things with that money."

 

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.