9 



Second, the budget encourages action across boundaries. We must look beyond ar- 

 tificial separations that occur between research and education in order to encourage 

 more inquiry-based learning. We are also committed to reducing organizational and 

 cultural barriers to interdisciplinary research because there is much exciting science 

 and engineering at the boundaries of disciplines and because such separations tend 

 to limit our vision. 



Finally this budget promotes partnerships. Our principal partners are, of course, 

 institutions and individuals in universities and colleges. This strong commitment to 

 academic research is reflected in our request for research and related activities, 

 which increases by 8.7 percent, to just under $2.5 billion. Roughly three-fourths of 

 both the total and the increment for FY 1997 will support activities based at col- 

 leges and universities. But we also encourage partnerships with the states, the pri- 

 vate sector, with other agencies, and with all those who have a stake in the science 

 and engineering enterprise. 



Let me take just a few moments to highlight how these principles are translated 

 into numbers in the budget request. The balance principle is reflected in the deci- 

 sions we have made that balance our responsibility to support research across all 

 areas of science and engineering with our obligation to promote excellence in edu- 

 cation. Just over half of our budget — 56 percent — goes for research project support 

 for individual investigators, research groups, and centers. Of the remaining 44 per- 

 cent, 20 percent is for education and training and 20 percent is for research facili- 

 ties, which are required for frontier research in many areas of science. This leaves 

 about 4 percent for the administration and management of the foundation. 



A word is in order about a change in our support of research facilities. NSF sup- 

 ports large, world-class, multi-user research facilities that are complicated, expen- 

 sive, and require a long-term commitment of support of operations and upgrades. 

 Included in this list are optical and radio telescopes, particle accelerators, the high- 

 field magnet lab, laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory (LIGO), the 

 Antarctic facilities, the research fleet, and other facilities. The budget request also 

 includes $95 million for our Major Research Equipment account, which will be used 

 to support the continued construction of LIGO and important safety, health, and en- 

 vironment improvements necessary to maintain U.S. research activities in the Ant- 

 arctic and the continuing U.S. presence at the South Pole. 



In order to accommodate our highest priorities, we have found it necessary to 

 eliminate support for the renovation of research facilities under the Academic Re- 

 search Infrastructure Program. I recognize that there are some who will be dis- 

 appointed with this decision, but in these times of constrained budgets, difficult 

 choices must be made. Let me assure you that this decision was not easy and it 

 was made only after much discussion and debate. Consistent with recommendations 

 provided in the National Performance Review, which stressed a reexamination of 

 our role and specific objectives, we have concluded that this renovation of academic 

 buildings might reasonably be supported from non-federal sources, such as states, 

 the private sector, or the academic institutions themselves. This decision provides 

 us with resources that will accommodate research and education activities which are 

 of a higher priority. We will continue our competitive program to support instru- 

 mentation at colleges and universities. 



The second principle used in developing the budget is building bridges across 

 many types of boundaries. This principle is exemplified in the integration of re- 

 search and education at all levels. We have made the integration of research and 

 education a major theme in our planning. There is a wealth of information pointing 

 to the value of inquiry-based learning as a superior way for students to learn and 

 also as a way of teaching problem-solving skills that transfer from one subject to 

 another. In the future, employers will increasingly need workers who are not only 

 well versed in science and technology concepts, but who are adept at learning 

 though experimentation, inquiry, critical evaluation, and discovery — all characteris- 

 tics of research. 



We are currently planning awards that recognize achievement and encourage fu- 

 ture efforts to integrate research and education. Some research universities have 

 shown leadership in developing innovative programs to broadly involve students in 

 research and inquiry-based learning and to involve their best researchers in science 

 and engineering education at all levels. We want to recognize their efforts and en- 

 courage them to share their ideas and experience with other institutions. 



We are also in the final stages of a comprehensive examination of the current 

 state of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at the under- 

 graduate level in the nation. This project will offer an overview of the needs and 

 opportunities for all undergraduate students and examine how science literacy for 

 the entire country is related to undergraduate education. We hope that these efforts 

 are responsive to the concerns of Members of this committee, who have been persist- 



