aspects of the work to make it more widely available and understood. At the same time, basic work is in progress to make the system of greater use in international energy economics.

Even though research is continuing and economists are constantly refining the underlying structure, the current system is already actively used for detailed study of contemporary problems of world trade. The model is used regularly for multilateral forecasts of trade and domestic economic activities for all of the participating countries, regional groupings, and the rest of the world. World trade and activity simulations and forecasts for 1974, 1975 and 1976 are now available and being refined. Alternative assumptions about oil prices, absorptive capacities of oil producing countries, and other plausible events are used as inputs for the different simulations. Some of these simulations have been designed on request for U.S. Government departments or agencies, such as the Department of Treasury and FEA.

Mr. Chairman, I have selected just three examples, though there are many others. The social sciences are rapidly developing a capability to help the Nation in many practical applications and are growing steadily stronger as areas of intellectual activity. At NSF, we are trying simultaneously to strengthen the intellectual development of the social sciences and to put them to use.

AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

I would like now to turn to several areas of management and administration of the agency.

Project Evaluation. As I indicated earlier, in the process of strengthening U.S. science, we engage in a large number of individual transactions each year. In each case, our aim is to support the best projects we can identify and to do what we can to insure that they are carried out effectively.

The key to this process is the system of peer review of the individual projects by highly qualified persons. This project evaluation method is time-tested and effective. It is our main method of quality control in the funding of research. The peer evaluation approach is used in all of our programs, though the details of its application vary in different cases. For example, individual basic research proposals are customarily mailed to individual reviewers whose evaluations serve as a principal input to our program officers' recommendations. For proposals on similar subjects, we may assemble a panel to consider them as a group. Large projects may receive an on-site visit of staff and consultants. Continuing activities, such as the National Research Centers, present detailed budget reviews each year to me and my senior staff.

Some elements of project review take place both during and after award. Program officers monitor the progress of grantees through on-site visits, telephone conversations, workshops, sessions at scientific meetings, and a variety of other procedures.

I believe that our project evaluation process is both flexible and efficient. But the full impact of the results of research often cannot be determined for many years after the research is completed. This is borne out by the example of solidstate electronics that I discussed earlier in the testimony I submitted for the record. As an additional example, the theory of continental drift was developed by Alfred Wegener 50 years ago. Only in the past 10 years has its true significance been realized, and it now serves as the conceptual basis for the modern geophysical description of the earth's crust. This description has contributed greatly to our knowledge of earthquakes and likely locations of petroleum and mineral deposits.

NSF program officers, who are all experts in their own right in their fields of science, seek diligently to understand the impact and value of the work that they have supported. The previous track record of an investigator and his general scientific reputation are of considerable significance to the proposal review process. The potential scientific or social impact of the project is carefully examined. Program Evaluation. Since I have recently sent a detailed report on program evaluation to the Subcommittee, I will not dwell at length on our methods and approach. I do want to point out that, just as evaluation of proposals and ongoing projects is the daily business of NSF program officers, evaluation of programs is a daily concern of mine and of the senior managers of NSF. We take this responsibility seriously, and we use a wide range of approaches to make our programs effective and productive. As detailed in my report to you, we have several systematic administrative mechanisms in our process of program planning, budgeting, and review that bring professional insight to bear on evaluation of

49-271 O 75 pt. 1 2

our programs. These involve the National Science Board, outside scientists, advisory committees and panels, and formal internal reviews.

The National Science Foundation has contributed to the formulation of OMB and GAO policies on evaluation and has participated in a recent OMB study on Federal agency evaluation. We have been requested to comment on a draft of proposed GAŎ guidelines for conduct of agency evaluations which would replace the current guidelines that were established in 1972.

I do not believe that a rigid system of program-by-program quantitative evaluation of research activities would be useful or cost effective for NSF. The principal benefits of research will be realized in the future, but are perceived only dimly now. However, we have been experimenting with quantitative and qualitative evaluation procedures for problem-oriented or development-oriented programs, and several of these are discussed in the report to you. Each of the units under my direction has been examining its evaluation tasks, and there have been further changes since the January report. For example, the Assistant Director for Research has recently established an Office of Planning, Coordination and Evaluation which is responsible for improving evaluation in the basic research area. We also, of course, carry out financial audits of major projects and programs. These provide useful insight into the business management practices of our contractors and grantees, although they do not delve into the scientific substance of the programs. At my direction, a summary survey of the current planning and evaluation activities across the Foundation has recently been initiated.

Information-Dissemination and Utilization

We have a great concern with the dissemination and use of scientific information. Scientists do not consider their work complete until it is published, and scientific publication provides one of the principal professional rewards to active scientists. There is, indeed, a large national and international industry of journal publication, data retrieval and indexing that serves the main function of science dissemination. We have had, for a number of years, a Science Information Service activity to try to improve the effectiveness of this overall process. We do not attempt to maintain a separate system for NSF grants only. Such a data system for tracking each publication under our awards would be duplicative and wasteful. However, each grantee is required to provide copies of his publications, which are kept in our grant files, and to provide a final report on his accomplishments, often in the form of a group of completed publications.

Variations of this system are used throughout the Foundation, but special dissemination and utilization efforts are needed for applied research and other focused programs. There, the intended end users or consumers are often outside the scientific community-in industry, government, or the general public. Such programs as Ocean Sediment Coring, the Arctic, Antarctic, and International Decade of Ocean Exploration carry out special publication and dissemination efforts to insure timely information exchange. The RANN program undertakes an extensive series of special utilization and dissemination activities, each keyed to the nature and interests of a group of users. For the hearings record last year, we provided a detailed discussion of that process, with a lengthy summary of specific examples, so I will not dwell further on the RANN utilization process.

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, in summary, in addition to a discussion of the overall role of science in the Nation, its long range implications, and a description of the substance of the program for which we seek appropriations, I have tried to treat several matters believed to be of particular interest to this Subcommittee social sciences, project evaluation, program evaluation, and information dissemination. I feel that the program we are proposing is sound and balanced and will be important for the Nation. While I do not intend to claim perfection, I believe that we are doing a good job in managing the program, and I assure you that we continue at all times to seek to improve our methods.

Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, the Foundation's request for appropriations totals $755.4 million. This includes $751.4 million in the Salaries and Expenses Appropriation and $4 million in the Special Foreign Currency Appropriation. An additional $20 million in FY 1975 deferrals-funds previously authorized and appropriated by the Congress-are included, bringing the total program proposed for FY 1976 to $775.4 million.

In summary, I would like to emphasize that the program being presented for FY 1976 provides strong support for basic research designed to advance scientific understanding on a broad front. It addresses special science education problems

and provides for innovative approaches to strengthen science education at all levels in selected areas. The NSF program is geared to national priorities and provides research support for an array of projects and programs that have potential to contribute knowledge needed for achievement of economic, energy, environmental, and other goals. It reflects the combined judgment of the National Science Board and the National Science Foundation staff. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the Committee's approval of the program as presented. The table on the next page summarizes our appropriation request.

This concludes my formal statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have concerning the NSF request for appropriations.

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF DR. H. GUYFORD STEVER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT SUPPORT

In FY 1976, the Scientific Research Project Support (SRPS) activity provides $380 million for fundamental research projects in all fields of science, an increase of $39.4 million over the FY 1975 total.

The programs supported under this activity help insure a strong base of competence in fundamental research. Scientific merit is the principal criterion for project selection, although there are other highly important factors which have a major influence on the decision to support a research project. These factors include relevance to specific social or environmental needs, probability that progress in a particular field will significantly enhance applied research opportunities, and possible benefits to other scientific fields.

The $39.4 million increase proposed for FY 1976 will provide for an extension of fundamental knowledge in the mathematical, physical, environmental, biological, engineering, computing, materials, and social sciences. Much of the increase will be devoted to advancing knowledge on fundamental processes, phenomena, and natural laws, particularly in physics, chemistry cellular biology, engineering and computer sciences. The increases will also permit the Foundation to give special emphasis to research on plant biology and sectors of ecology that are especially relevant to pest control and food production; energy-related research on advanced technology materials, and the environment; and research in economic theory and other aspects of the social sciences.

Some of the other major research efforts provided for in this program include: In the Atmospheric sciences-major support is continued for the International Magnetospheric Study, and research empasis is given to cloud physics, weather and forecasting theory.

In the Earth Sciences-Increased support is provided for the International Geodynamics Program, an organized effort of 45 nations to explore and test the plate tectonics theory to better understand earthquakes, volcanoes, the formation of ore deposits, and mountain building mechanisms. Emphasis will also be given to the geology and geochemistry of mineral deposits.

In Oceanography-Increased support would be provided for studies of the physical and chemical processes in coastal ocean areas.

Mr. Chairman, the Foundation's Biological and Medical Sciences activities have been subdivided into three categories in the Foundations FY 1976 budget. This was done to permit a more accurate description of the program content.

In Biochemistry and Physiology-Increased funding is provided for research in photosynthesis, enzyme catalysis, and metabolism and immunity.

In Cellular Biology-Studies are increased on plant development in cell culture, regulation of gene expression, and support of human cell and tissue culture facilities.

In Ecology and Population Biology-Research emphasis is given to examination of populations, communities, ecosystems, and ecosystem theory;

In Physics-Increased support is provided for research in intermediate energy physics, and for increased use of the Nation's major accelerators to capitalize on recent discoveries of new subatomic particles;

In Chemistry-Research support is expanded for work in catalysis and other energy related chemistry areas and for studies of chemical separations, liquids, and the chemical biological interface particularly in the area of bioinorganic chemistry; In Astronomy-Increased studies would be supported on binary stars, mechanisms of stellar births and deaths, and the development of millimeter wave instrumentation;

In Mathematics-The FY 1976 program provides for intensified research in complex functions theory, differential geometry, dynamical systems, functional analysis and finite groups as well as others equally important in extending mathematical frontiers;

In Social Sciences-Increased emphasis is placed on economic theory and measurement techniques to analyze energy, resources, productivity and international economic problems;

In Engineering-Expanded research on engineering concepts for energy conservation, on more efficient food processing techniques, and on studies that can lead to improved natural resources through enhanced exploration, mining and beneficiation techniques; and

In Materials Research-Intensified studies on the fundamental properties of materials to increase understanding of their behavior.