Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
From The National Science Foundation
Via
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
5.24.24
Jeffrey Mervis
An unorthodox bid for a record $1.6 billion in construction money poses huge obstacles for U.S. agency.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
For decades, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has worked closely with U.S. astronomers to choose successive cutting-edge telescopes—and figure out how to pay for them. But that hasn’t happened with the community’s top ground-based priority in the next decade: the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) in Hawai’i and the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) in Chile.
Those efforts to build the largest ever U.S.-led optical telescopes are seeking a record $1.6 billion investment from NSF at a time when the $9 billion agency is strapped for cash. And that’s not the only hitch. Their joint pitch to NSF, called the U.S. Extremely Large Telescope Program (US-ELTP), is out of step with the agency’s approach for selecting big scientific instruments, from accelerators to telescopes.
NSF ordinarily vets projects that are still on the drawing board. Instead, the US-ELTP is essentially offering NSF the chance to buy into two projects that are already well underway. It has forced the agency to tweak its usual approach, spelled out in a 320-page guide, for choosing and building new facilities. “Needing to understand the unique scope of this project has lengthened the decision-making process for NSF,” an agency spokesperson acknowledges.
In the past 18 months both projects have passed a preliminary design review by an external NSF panel and two additional in-house reviews. However, those assessments focused on their scientific merit and the technical soundness of each telescope’s design. They did not resolve whether the US-ELTP’s two-site option is viable and, if it isn’t, which project should go forward.
In February, NSF’s oversight body, the National Science Board (NSB), took steps to speed up the decision. Without expressing a preference, the board approved a $1.6 billion spending ceiling for the US-ELTP and asked NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan to come up with a plan for moving forward.
“We recognized that the process was stalled, and that both projects were in limbo,” says Dan Reed, a computer scientist at the University of Utah who stepped down as board chair earlier this month when his 6-year term on the board expired. “This was our attempt to kick-start the system and drive it toward closure.”
This month, Panchanathan unveiled his next step: a new external panel that will assess the strengths and weaknesses of both telescopes. NSF declined to name the panelists it chose, citing the need for confidentiality. But Panchanathan says the group will hear presentations from each project in July and that its report, due in September, will “inform my decision-making on advancing either project to the final design stage.”
Traditionally, private entities have built and operated astronomy’s most powerful telescopes, and that was the plan for these two projects. Toward that goal, a consortium of 14 research institutions led by the Carnegie Institution for Science has amassed $850 million for the GMT, while the California Institute of Technology and the University of California have led an international team of partners that has contributed $2 billion toward building the TMT.
But those sums still leave each project $1.6 billion short of what they need. Meanwhile, construction of a giant European telescope that could see first light as soon as 2029 has forged ahead in Chile.
Clik here to view.
In 2018, the two rival U.S. projects joined hands under the US-ELT banner and turned to NSF to make up the shortfall. In return for a significant investment, NSF would receive a sizable chunk of viewing time, which any U.S. astronomer could compete for.
NSF funds such large instruments through its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (“MREFC”) account. Created in the 1990s, the account is distinct from NSF’s bread-and-butter research programs, and disciplines typically have agreed to wait their turn for a slot to open up in its annual budget, which has hovered around $250 million. But the US-ELTP, with two similar projects in the same field, has stressed the system.
“I don’t recall any time when there’s been two MREFC candidates from the same subdiscipline simultaneously that have passed the preliminary design stage,” says Diane Souvaine, a computer scientist at Tufts University who was NSB chair when NSF last updated its facilities guide in 2020. Their size sets them apart as well, she says. “We’ve never had a facility that could take as much as 30% of NSF’s annual budget just for construction.”
NSF’s tight budget is a huge obstacle, Reed says. Congress imposed an 8% cut on NSF this year, compounding its failure to deliver on a 2022 promise of sustained annual increases for the agency. Given that fiscal squeeze, Reed notes, it’s hard to imagine the agency funding both telescopes.
The board didn’t say that, he says, because “we did not want to usurp the director’s authority to make a decision.” And its backing of a $1.6 billion investment is an “aspirational” statement, he adds, not a commitment to spend that amount. “We believe in the value of the ELT,” Reed says. “But the truth is, absent new money, NSF can’t afford it.”
The leaders of both the TMT and the GMT say they welcome the board’s February statement and the new review. “We don’t know how this is all going to turn out,” says TMT’s chief executive Robert Kirshner. “But it’s better than silence, and it’s better than standing still.” Robert Shelton, who leads the GMT consortium, thinks the panel’s existence will help him sign up more partners. “When I talk to potential [donors], they say, ‘We really love what you’re doing, but we’d sure like to understand what the federal government is going to do.’”
In their public statements, Kirshner and Shelton argue that NSF should fund both telescopes—even though the $1.6 ceiling approved by NSB is only enough to complete one. They cite the scientific importance of operating instruments in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, as well as their ability to partner with existing NSF-funded telescopes in both Hawaii and Chile.
Both men also believe federal legislators like the idea of building two telescopes. Although Congress hasn’t appropriated any money for the projects, a directive in NSF’s final 2024 budget adopted earlier this year “strongly encourages the NSB to ensure that the US-ELT program includes a two-observatory footprint.”
The new panel is essentially being asked whether the benefits of an NSF investment outweigh the potential risks to its continued support of research and training across many disciplines. During his 2 May presentation to the science board, Panchanathan laid out several criteria he hopes the panel will apply, with project management at the top of the list.
Building one or both ELTs means committing to a lengthy relationship with whatever organization operates them, notes University of Chicago cosmologist Michael Turner, former head of the NSF directorate that funds astronomy and the physical sciences. “This is a 50-year observatory, so choosing the right partner and deciding how the program will be governed is very important,” says Turner, who believes NSF needs to choose one of the two telescopes. “My worry was that science would be the only criteria, but [Panchanathan’s] statement makes it clear that isn’t the case.”
The TMT’s team faces a special challenge. Native Hawaiians have strongly objected to adding an enormous telescope to the many on Manuakea, the TMT’s preferred site, regarding it as a further desecration of a sacred place. The telescope—if it goes forward—might ultimately have to move to a new site if ongoing reviews of its cultural and environmental impact turn up any showstoppers. In contrast, the Carnegie Institution owns the land on which the GMT is being built.
Although U.S. astronomers are hoping the new panel will recommend that NSF proceed with one or both telescopes, much more would need to happen before first light. NSF would have to request—and Congress would need to approve—increasing sums of money to spend on the project through its completion sometime in the 2030s. NSF’s budget request for 2025, now pending in Congress, hints at how that might work by including MREFC funding for “future priority projects” at a level that starts at $206 million in 2027.
But Panchanathan must first ask the board to approve a recommendation to add the US-ELTP to the MREFC queue. And he can’t do that without approval from White House budget officials, who will be answering to the person elected president in November.
Reed thinks such a deliberate process makes sense when the stakes are so high. “For a $10 billion agency like NSF, a $1 billion facility is a big deal and a real strategic investment,” he says.
See the full article here .
Comments are invited and will be appreciated, especially if the reader finds any errors which I can correct.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Please help promote STEM in your local schools.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
The National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…we are the funding source for approximately 24 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, The National Science Foundation is the major source of federal backing.
We fulfill our mission chiefly by issuing limited-term grants — currently about 12,000 new awards per year, with an average duration of three years — to fund specific research proposals that have been judged the most promising by a rigorous and objective merit-review system. Most of these awards go to individuals or small groups of investigators. Others provide funding for research centers, instruments and facilities that allow scientists, engineers and students to work at the outermost frontiers of knowledge.
The National Science Foundation ‘s goals — discovery, learning, research infrastructure and stewardship — provide an integrated strategy to advance the frontiers of knowledge, cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and engineering workforce and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens, build the nation’s research capability through investments in advanced instrumentation and facilities, and support excellence in science and engineering research and education through a capable and responsive organization. We like to say that The National Science Foundation is “where discoveries begin.”
Many of the discoveries and technological advances have been truly revolutionary. In the past few decades, The National Science Foundation -funded researchers have won some 236 Nobel Prizes as well as other honors too numerous to list. These pioneers have included the scientists or teams that discovered many of the fundamental particles of matter, analyzed the cosmic microwaves left over from the earliest epoch of the universe, developed carbon-14 dating of ancient artifacts, decoded the genetics of viruses, and created an entirely new state of matter called a Bose-Einstein condensate.
The National Science Foundation also funds equipment that is needed by scientists and engineers but is often too expensive for any one group or researcher to afford. Examples of such major research equipment include giant optical and radio telescopes, Antarctic research sites, high-end computer facilities and ultra-high-speed connections, ships for ocean research, sensitive detectors of very subtle physical phenomena and gravitational wave observatories.
Another essential element in The National Science Foundation’s mission is support for science and engineering education, from pre-K through graduate school and beyond. The research we fund is thoroughly integrated with education to help ensure that there will always be plenty of skilled people available to work in new and emerging scientific, engineering and technological fields, and plenty of capable teachers to educate the next generation.
No single factor is more important to the intellectual and economic progress of society, and to the enhanced well-being of its citizens, than the continuous acquisition of new knowledge. The National Science Foundation is proud to be a major part of that process.
Specifically, the Foundation’s organic legislation authorizes us to engage in the following activities:
Initiate and support, through grants and contracts, scientific and engineering research and programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential, and education programs at all levels, and appraise the impact of research upon industrial development and the general welfare.
Award graduate fellowships in the sciences and in engineering.
Foster the interchange of scientific information among scientists and engineers in the United States and foreign countries.
Foster and support the development and use of computers and other scientific methods and technologies, primarily for research and education in the sciences.
Evaluate the status and needs of the various sciences and engineering and take into consideration the results of this evaluation in correlating our research and educational programs with other federal and non-federal programs.
Provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation and analysis of data on scientific and technical resources in the United States, and provide a source of information for policy formulation by other federal agencies.
Determine the total amount of federal money received by universities and appropriate organizations for the conduct of scientific and engineering research, including both basic and applied, and construction of facilities where such research is conducted, but excluding development, and report annually thereon to the President and the Congress.
Initiate and support specific scientific and engineering activities in connection with matters relating to international cooperation, national security and the effects of scientific and technological applications upon society.
Initiate and support scientific and engineering research, including applied research, at academic and other nonprofit institutions and, at the direction of the President, support applied research at other organizations.
Recommend and encourage the pursuit of national policies for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences and engineering. Strengthen research and education innovation in the sciences and engineering, including independent research by individuals, throughout the United States.
Support activities designed to increase the participation of women and minorities and others underrepresented in science and technology.
At present, The National Science Foundation has a total workforce of about 2,100 at its Alexandria, VA, headquarters, including approximately 1,400 career employees, 200 scientists from research institutions on temporary duty, 450 contract workers and the staff of the NSB office and the Office of the Inspector General.
The National Science Foundation is divided into the following seven directorates that support science and engineering research and education: Biological Sciences, Computer and Information Science and Engineering, Engineering, Geosciences, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, and Education and Human Resources. Each is headed by an assistant director and each is further subdivided into divisions like materials research, ocean sciences and behavioral and cognitive sciences.
Within The National Science Foundation ‘s Office of the Director, the Office of Integrative Activities also supports research and researchers. Other sections of The National Science Foundation are devoted to financial management, award processing and monitoring, legal affairs, outreach and other functions. The Office of the Inspector General examines the foundation’s work and reports to the NSB and Congress.
Each year, The National Science Foundation supports an average of about 200,000 scientists, engineers, educators and students at universities, laboratories and field sites all over the United States and throughout the world, from Alaska to Alabama to Africa to Antarctica. You could say that The National Science Foundation support goes “to the ends of the earth” to learn more about the planet and its inhabitants, and to produce fundamental discoveries that further the progress of research and lead to products and services that boost the economy and improve general health and well-being.
As described in our strategic plan, The National Science Foundation is the only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences. The National Science Foundation is tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in a wide range of scientific areas, from astronomy to geology to zoology. So, in addition to funding research in the traditional academic areas, the agency also supports “high risk, high pay off” ideas, novel collaborations and numerous projects that may seem like science fiction today, but which the public will take for granted tomorrow. And in every case, we ensure that research is fully integrated with education so that today’s revolutionary work will also be training tomorrow’s top scientists and engineers.
Unlike many other federal agencies, The National Science Foundation does not hire researchers or directly operate our own laboratories or similar facilities. Instead, we support scientists, engineers and educators directly through their own home institutions (typically universities and colleges). Similarly, we fund facilities and equipment such as telescopes, through cooperative agreements with research consortia that have competed successfully for limited-term management contracts.
The National Science Foundation ‘s job is to determine where the frontiers are, identify the leading U.S. pioneers in these fields and provide money and equipment to help them continue. The results can be transformative. For example, years before most people had heard of “nanotechnology,” The National Science Foundation was supporting scientists and engineers who were learning how to detect, record and manipulate activity at the scale of individual atoms — the nanoscale. Today, scientists are adept at moving atoms around to create devices and materials with properties that are often more useful than those found in nature.
Dozens of companies are gearing up to produce nanoscale products. The National Science Foundation is funding the research projects, state-of-the-art facilities and educational opportunities that will teach new skills to the science and engineering students who will make up the nanotechnology workforce of tomorrow.
At the same time, we are looking for the next frontier.
The National Science Foundation ‘s task of identifying and funding work at the frontiers of science and engineering is not a “top-down” process. The National Science Foundation operates from the “bottom up,” keeping close track of research around the United States and the world, maintaining constant contact with the research community to identify ever-moving horizons of inquiry, monitoring which areas are most likely to result in spectacular progress and choosing the most promising people to conduct the research.
The National Science Foundation funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. We do this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the U.S. The Foundation considers proposals submitted by organizations on behalf of individuals or groups for support in most fields of research. Interdisciplinary proposals also are eligible for consideration. Awardees are chosen from those who send us proposals asking for a specific amount of support for a specific project.
Proposals may be submitted in response to the various funding opportunities that are announced on the The National Science Foundation website. These funding opportunities fall into three categories — program descriptions, program announcements and program solicitations — and are the mechanisms The National Science Foundation uses to generate funding requests. At any time, scientists and engineers are also welcome to send in unsolicited proposals for research and education projects, in any existing or emerging field. The Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) provides guidance on proposal preparation and submission and award management. At present, The National Science Foundation receives more than 42,000 proposals per year.
To ensure that proposals are evaluated in a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth manner, we use a rigorous system of merit review. Nearly every proposal is evaluated by a minimum of three independent reviewers consisting of scientists, engineers and educators who do not work at NSF or for the institution that employs the proposing researchers. The National Science Foundation selects the reviewers from among the national pool of experts in each field and their evaluations are confidential. On average, approximately 40,000 experts, knowledgeable about the current state of their field, give their time to serve as reviewers each year.
The reviewer’s job is to decide which projects are of the very highest caliber. The National Science Foundation ‘s merit review process, considered by some to be the “gold standard” of scientific review, ensures that many voices are heard and that only the best projects make it to the funding stage. An enormous amount of research, deliberation, thought and discussion goes into award decisions.
The National Science Foundation program officer reviews the proposal and analyzes the input received from the external reviewers. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the program officer makes an “award” or “decline” recommendation to the division director. Final programmatic approval for a proposal is generally completed at The National Science Foundation ‘s division level. A principal investigator (PI) whose proposal for The National Science Foundation support has been declined will receive information and an explanation of the reason(s) for declination, along with copies of the reviews considered in making the decision. If that explanation does not satisfy the PI, he/she may request additional information from the cognizant The National Science Foundation program officer or division director.
If the program officer makes an award recommendation and the division director concurs, the recommendation is submitted to The National Science Foundation’s Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA) for award processing. A DGA officer reviews the recommendation from the program division/office for business, financial and policy implications, and the processing and issuance of a grant or cooperative agreement. DGA generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days after the program division/office makes its recommendation.