Challenges for DMR Facilities Stewardship: Expanding Diversity in Science and Engineering

1. Challenges for DMR FacilitiesStewardship for science and engineering research and education ranging far beyond “materials” NAF Directors’ Meeting NHMFL, Tallahassee 20 September 2007 Lance Haworth, Acting Division Director, DMR

2. Outline • Part I: Addressing Diversity • Part II: Funding Landscape and Challenges for DMR Facilities and Instrumentation

3. NSF Diversity Mission Statement • NSF's goal is to expand the numbers and diversity of individuals – women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities – engaged in the science and engineering enterprise through increased participation of underrepresented groups and institutions in all NSF programs and activities. • Here underrepresented minorities include African Americans, American Indians including Native Alaskans, Hispanics and Native Pacific Islanders.

4. NSF invests in the best ideas from the most capable people, determined by competitivemerit review Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • What projects are most likely to produce new knowledge? • Broader Impacts • Education, people, benefit to society, infrastructure, dissemination, impact on science and engineering… • See the DMR Dear Colleague Letter at www.nsf.gov/materials

7. Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering NAS Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, 2006 • Studies have not found any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women in academic faculty and leadership positions in S&T fields. • Compared with men, women faculty members are generally paid less and promoted more slowly, receive fewer honors, and hold fewer leadership positions. These discrepancies do not appear to be based on productivity, the significance of their work, or any other performance measures. • Measures of success underlying performance-evaluation systems are often arbitrary and frequently applied in ways that place women at a disadvantage.

8. The DMR Community, FY 2006 And more than 5000 people used DMR-supported facilities in FY06

9. Broadening Participation “The Under-represented Majority” – Shirley Ann Jackson % of DMR Competitive Awards to Women or Minorities Ethnic Minority (34/385 in FY06) Women (66/385 in FY06) Representation varies by program and discipline

10. Diversity – Current DMR Activities • Reviewer selection • “Broader Impacts” activities in all programs • Division may match program funds for new awards • PREMs • Diversity plan in place for each DMR Center & Facility • Gender Equity Department Chair Workshops • (CHE Oct 06); Physics (PHY-AST-DMR) May 07; MS&E planning (DMR-ENG) • DMR web page posting on Broadening Participation • DMR Diversity Working Group – Lynnette Madsen, chair • Develop and recommend strategy • NSF Diversity Working Group – Celeste Rohlfing, co-chair

11. Partnerships for Research and Education in Materials • Competitive award to minority serving institutions • Interdisciplinary research teams involve both institutions • Education programs to build student participation • Competitions 2004 and 2006 • Now 10 Awards of ~ 500k/year for 5 years • Next open competition 2009 PREMs broaden participation in materials research and education by developing long-term, collaborative partnerships between minority serving institutions and DMR-supported groups, centers and facilities

12. More Information NSF information and links are posted at http://www.nsf.gov/mps/dmr/diversity.jsp (Recruitment, retention & monitoring, resources, networks, etc) and see Broadening Participation in Science and Engineering Research and Education: Workshop Proceedings NSB 04-72

13. Outline • Part I: Addressing Diversity • Part II: Funding Landscape and Challenges for DMR Facilities and Instrumentation

14. We seek a fundamental understanding of materials and condensed matter DMR Can we understand and control processing/structure/properties relationships in engineering materials? Can we create new materials for science and technology? How can we explore and develop the frontier between materials and biology? Can we understand and apply the physics of condensed matter? How can we understand and exploit the nano-world?

15. Directorate for Mathematical & Physical SciencesFunding History, 1997-2008*

16. DMR Program Balance FY 2006 $252.2M(includes MRI) About 2000 faculty members, 600 postdocs, 2500 grad students and 1500 undergraduates “on budget”

17. DMR National User FacilitiesStewardship for science and engineering research and education ranging far beyond “materials” • National High Magnetic Field Laboratory • Florida State University, University of Florida, LANL • Neutron Facility • CHRNS at the National Center for Neutron Science, NIST • Synchrotron Facilities • CHESS at Cornell University • SRC at the University of Wisconsin • University-based groups using DoE facilities • National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network • 13 Universities • NSF-ENG lead, plus DMR, CHE, BIO co-funding

18. DMR Funding History, 1996-2006 $242.6M in FY06 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 IMR, ITR and “other” included in total 96 98 00 02 04 06

19. DMR Proposal Pressure & Success Rates (Research Grants) Proposals Success Rate • Many strong proposals declined essentially for lack of funds • Grant sizes not keeping pace with ‘scientific’ inflation • Success rates vary but NSF-wide average is no better

20. NRC Report on the MRSEC ProgramPre-publication version, June 2007http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11966 “The MRSEC program produces excellent, frontier science of the same high standard as that supported by NSF through other mechanisms.” (but) “The effectiveness of MRSECs has been reduced in recent years by increasing requirements without a commensurate increase in resources. Increasing the mean grant size is necessary to allow the program to fulfill its important mission goals.”

21. Increase America’s talent pool by vastly improving K-12 science and mathematics education Sustain and strengthen the nation’s traditional commitment to long-term basic research that has the potential to be transformational… Make the United States the most attractive setting in which to study and perform research… Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world to innovate… • Investment in cutting-edge basic research • Investment in facilities and instrumentation • World class science and engineering workforce • Focus on Physical Sciences & Engineering • Doubles NSF, DOE-OS, NIST over 10 years

22. Impact on Competitiveness“Transformative Materials” – hundreds of spinoff companies – thousands of high-tech people – just a few examples • Conducting polymers • Heeger / McDiarmid / Shirakawa, Penn MRL 1970s – plastic batteries within 8 years, Nobel Prize 2000. Heeger’s UNIAX acquired by DuPont in 2000. • Liquid crystals • Noel Clark, Bob Meyer since 1970s – APS Buckley Prize 2005 – electro-optic light valves (Clark; founded DisplayTech in 1986, producing ferroelectric materials and display devices). Kent State STC… • Non-Linear Optical Crystals • Robert Feigelson and others (Stanford) – pioneering work on crystal growth of lithium niobate and other non-linear optical materials. • Nanotechnology • Raindance – Harvard MRSEC – Weitz group - microfluidics • U Mass and CPIMA MRSECs – polymer templating for flash memory and low-k nanostructures – Tom Russell, Craig Hawker – IBM applications • High Temperature Superconductors • American Superconductor – MIT MRL 1987 (Greg Yurek and others) • Stanford ‘KGB’ group – thin film HTC applications – Conductus.

23. Recent “DMR” Nobel Laureates • Physics • 96 Lee, Osheroff, Richardson • 97 Chu, Tannoudji, Phillips • 98 Tsui, Stormer, Laughlin • 00 Alferov, Kroemer, Kilby • 03 Abrikosov, Ginsberg, Leggett • Chemistry • 96 Curl,Smalley, Kroto • 98 Pople, Kohn • 99 Zewail • 00 McDiarmid, Heeger • 03 Agre, MacKinnon • 05 Chauvin, Schrock, Grubbs

24. MPS by Division www.nsf.gov/about/budget/

25. Priorities and ChallengesMaterials research is key to competitiveness and is brimming with new ideas and opportunities • Raise the proposal success rates • Protect budget share for IIAs & groups – the ‘discovery machine’ • Maintain current balance among funding modes • Support areas of emphasis via core wherever possible • Strengthen the MRSEC program – restructure if necessary • Support instrumentation at all scales – IMR, MRI, MIP • Facilities – stewardship/partnership – NHMFL, light sources, neutrons… • We MUST broaden participation in materials research and education! • Strong support for international partnership • Education is integrated throughout! ACI is our golden opportunity for real growth and impact

26. DMR Facilities & Instrumentation – Challenges • Stewardship of the NHMFL • DMR currently provides ~95% of NSF funding • Operating costs increasing substantially • Serving an increasingly broad user community • Partnership is essential • Future of university-based synchrotron facilities? • Stewardship of a future major light source?*** • Support for neutron & nano facilities • Support for mid-scale & ‘small’ instrumentation • e.g. NSF support for beamlines at national facilities • Developing/acquiring ‘bench-scale’ instrumentation Facility operating costsborne by research directorate(s) ***MPSAC panel on NSF role in future light source facilities

27. Instrumentation and Facilities Just One Possible Scenario for DMR Assumes 5% growth after 2008; CLS development, 50% M&O starting 2016 NAFI stays at ~20% of DMR total excluding MRI

28. Thank you! lhaworth@nsf.gov http://www.nsf.gov/materials NHMFL Open House