Program Review of the NSF Science and Technology Centers, 2000-2009

美国科学促进会（AAAS）建议对美国国家科学基金会活跃的科学技术中心（STC）：综合伙伴关系项目进行审查。审查将侧重于STC的“附加价值”，即这些中心提供个体研究者研究所没有的东西，并将表征STC组合，而不是单个中心。我们的目的是评估STCs对学术研究行为的总体影响。对个别教师、学生和大学；构成各中心研究重点的学科范围；科学事业在创造和培育新（交叉）学科方面的进步。美国科学促进会提出这项审查有几个原因。首先，STC计划作为一个整体在其历史上只被审查过一次。2000年、2002年和2005- 2006年启动的17个中心从未接受过项目审查。其次，在NSF内部和外部，对项目影响证据的期望和要求已经加强。第三，也是最重要的，是令人信服的智力原因：(a)对科学发现和进步的过程有了新的理解，包括越来越多地关注在学科发展的主导范式的初始阶段存在的竞争理论和研究重点；(b)提高对理论、实验和仪器技术进步之间相互作用的认识；(c)关于科学赞助人——公司、私人基金会以及联邦机构——对某些研究轨迹蓬勃发展的方向和速度做出选择性贡献的猜测。更广泛的影响该项目将解决通过科学技术中心投资机制所产生的其他研究成果：(1)为国家科学基金会提供信息，从而为公共资金的投资提供管理工具。(2)与此同时，科技合作项目构成了团队科学的重大项目和投资。捕获和澄清这些影响需要与知识、产品和其他利益的消费者相关的度量。捕获和澄清这些影响需要与知识、产品和其他利益的消费者相关的度量。然而，结果的差异可以追溯到STC流程和研究影响，进而提供对联邦投资流程的见解，同时展示问责制。STCs面临的挑战是在促进传统上在科学和工程领域代表性不足的群体参与方面发挥领导作用。因此，如果在调查的方式中发现这种机制具有重要的附加价值，就可以分享关于投资机制如何影响执行者的多样性及其工作性质的经验教训。网站www.aas.org，以及研究竞争计划和能力中心网站，将用于突出项目和结果。我们将把报告的结果分发给科学技术委员会、政策界（在研究评估、研究政策和科学与公共政策等同行评审的渠道）以及所有对研究伙伴关系、管理和评估感兴趣的人。最后，介绍所吸取的经验教训可能对机构在瞄准某些目标和建立组合时具有指导意义。

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) proposes a review of the NSF active Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships as a program. The review will focus on the ``value added`` of the STCs, i.e., what these centers provide that individual investigator research does not, and would characterize the STC portfolio, not individual centers. Our aim is to appraise the collective impact of the STCs on the conduct of academic research?upon individual faculty and students and upon universities; the range of disciplines that constitute the research foci of the centers; and the progress of the scientific enterprise in creating and nurturing new (inter)disciplines. Intellectual MeritAAAS proposes this review for several reasons. First, the STC program as a totality has been reviewed only once in its history. The 17 centers launched in 2000, 2002, and 2005-06 have never been subject to a program review. Second, within NSF and outside NSF, expectations and requirements concerning the need for evidence of program impacts have intensified. Third, and most important, are compelling intellectual reasons: (a) new understanding of the course of scientific discovery and progress, including increased attention to the presence of competing theories and research priorities in the initial phase of what over time comes to be seen as dominant paradigms in which discipline evolve; (b) increased appreciation for the interaction among advances in theory, experimentation, and instrumentation; and (c) conjectures about the selective contribution that patrons of science-corporations and private foundations as well as federal agencies-make to the direction and pace at which some research trajectories flourish. Broader ImpactsThe project will address additional outcomes from the conduct of research created through the mechanism of investing in STCs: (1)to inform NSF, and thus provide a management tool for investment of public funds. (2) At the same time, the STCs constitute a high-profile program and investment in team science. Capturing and clarifying these impacts demands metrics related to the consumers of knowledge, products and other benefits. Capturing and clarifying these impacts demands metrics related to the consumers of knowledge, products and other benefits. Howe can differences in outcomes be traced to STC processes and research impacts, and in turn provide insights into the federal investment process while demonstrating accountability. The STCs are challenged to demonstrate leadership in fostering participation in groups traditionally underrepresented in science and engineering. Thus, should this mechanisms be found to have significant added value in the ways investigated, there will be lessons to share on how the mechanisms of investments affect the diversity of performers and the character of their work. The site www.aas.org , as well as the Research Competitive Program and Capacity Center sites, will be used to highlight the project and the results. We will disseminate the report findings to the STCs, the policy community (in peer-reviewed outlets such as Research Evaluation, Research Policy, and Science and Public Policy), and all interested in research partnerships, management, and evaluation. Finally, presentations of lessons learned may be instructive to agencies when aiming for certain goals and building portfolios.