This is historical material, "frozen in time." The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release April 22, 1993

              FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,
                    ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY

The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) addresses science and technology policy issues affecting multiple Federal agencies. The Council is chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and is comprised of Cabinet members or their deputies from the major Federal Departments and the heads of Federal science agencies.

The Council is an important means for coordinating Federal research and development (R&D) programs and other multi-agency science and technology activities. It also provides a mechanism for focussing attention on science, engineering, and technology policy issues within the Federal agencies.

The interagency nature of the Council makes it a critical body for the planning, budgeting, and coordination necessary to set government-wide priorities on cross-cutting R&D initiatives and to ensure efficient use of Federal R&D resources. In close cooperation with the Office of Management and Budget, the Council and its committees develop coordinated, integrated strategies, programs, and budgets for Federal research and development in high priority, cross-cutting areas of science and technology. In each activity, the goal is to achieve consensus that can guide the actions of participating agencies.

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

I am pleased to forward with this letter FCCSET Initiatives in the FY 1994 Budget, a report prepared by the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) to supplement the President's Fiscal Year 1994 Budget. This report describes six initiatives and how they relate to the Technology Initiative announced by President Clinton and Vice President Gore on February 22, 1993 titled Technology for America's Economic Growth, A New Direction to Build Economic Strength.

The six cross-cutting budget initiatives are in the areas of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, High Performance Computing and Communications, Global Change Research, Advanced Materials and Processing, Biotechnology Research, and Mathematics and Science Education. These FCCSET initiatives are an important part of the President's economic program, and are an integral part of the President's overall strategy for science and technology.

This document summarizes each initiative and describes the goals and strategic priorities of the initiative, implementation plans, the rationale for a coordinated interagency approach, major program components, the roles of each agency, and proposed activities. In addition, we provide summary FY 1994 budget totals by department or agency, accomplishments to date, and evaluation activities underway or planned, as well as private sector coordination.

Investing in science and technology is one of the Administration's highest priorities for investing in America's future. This investment, together with other major human and physical capital initiatives outlined in the President's FY 1994 budget, will produce a growing economy with more high-skill, high-wage jobs for American workers while protecting our environment. These public investments will greatly contribute to a stronger, more competitive private sector that can maintain and expand our role in critical world markets and improve our education system so that every student is challenged. The most important measures of the success of these initiatives will be our ability to strengthen our nation's economy and improve the quality of life for the American people.

                           John H. Gibbons
                              Director

FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,

ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY

     John H. Gibbons, Chairman
        Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

     Members

     Department of State (DOS)
     Department of Defense (DOD)
     Department of the Interior (DOI)
     Department of Agriculture (USDA)
     Department of Commerce (DOC)
     Department of Labor (DOL)
     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
     Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
     Department of Transportation (DOT)
     Department of Energy (DOE)
     Department of Education (ED)
     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
     Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
     National Security Council (NSC)
     Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
     General Services Administration (GSA)
     National Science Foundation (NSF)

     Executive Secretary

     Charles H. Dickens
        Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
        (202) 395-5101

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

Introduction........................................................
............................................. 1

     Table 1.   FCCSET Initiative Participation by Agency, FY 
1994...................  3

     Table 2.   Funding for FCCSET Initiative by Agency, FY 1994 
Request.......  4

FY 1994 FCCSET Initiatives:

     ?   Advanced Manufacturing 
     Technology.............................................  5

     ?   High Performance Computing and 
          Communications......................... 11

     ?   U.S. Global Change Research 
          ....................................................... 17

     ?   Advanced Materials and Processing 
          .............................................. 23

     ?   Biotechnology Research 
          ..........................................................
          .... 29 

     ?   Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology 
          Education........ 35

(THIS PAGE WILL BE BLANK) INTRODUCTION

The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) was established by statute in 1976 to address science and technology policy issues affecting multiple Federal agencies. The Council is chaired by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and is composed of Cabinet members or their deputies from the major Federal Departments and the heads of Federal science and technology agencies. The FCCSET is charged with --

? Providing more effective planning, integration, and

     coordination of Federal scientific, engineering, educational, 
     and technological programs;

? Achieving more effective utilization of the scientific,

     engineering, educational, and technological resources and 
     facilities of Federal agencies, including the elimination of 
     unnecessary duplication;

? Involving individuals and companies from the private sector in

     addressing the interaction of the Federal government and 
     private industry concerning scientific, engineering, 
     educational, and technological issues; and

? Furthering international cooperation in science, engineering,

and technology.

The agencies participating in FCCSET, in conjunction with OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget, have undertaken crosscutting analyses of all Federal activities in six specific areas of science and technology. The FCCSET conducted inventories of current agency activities in these areas and fashioned coordinated strategies with long-range goals and priorities to guide Federal programs and activities. These FCCSET Initiatives, described below, address issues of great importance to national needs and objectives.

The President's FY 1994 Budget presents six interagency research and development (R&D) Initiatives that were developed through the FCCSET: Advanced Manufacturing Technology; High Performance Computing and Communications; Global Change Research; Advanced Materials and Processing; Biotechnology Research; and Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education.

Sixteen Cabinet Departments and independent agencies that are members of FCCSET are participating in one or more of the FY 1994 Initiatives (see Table 1). Seven FCCSET members are participating in all six Initiatives: Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services, as well as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Science Foundation.

The Administration is proposing $76 billion in R&D investments in 1994, a record high level. It is difficult to make a precise comparison between the FCCSET Initiatives and the R&D total because the definitions for the two sets of data are not necessarily identical and
there may been some double counting for closely related activities that are present in more than one Initiative (see Table 2).

In the current very constrained budget climate, the support for the FCCSET Initiatives reflects the determination by the President and the Vice President to give priority to those programs and activities that support the new Technology Initiative announced on February 22.

Copies of full reports on each of the FCCSET Initiatives are in preparation and will be released by June 30. An order form has been printed at the end of this booklet.

Table 1

FCCSET Initiative Participation by Agency, FY 1994

Agency

DOS

DOD

DOI

USDA

DOC

DOL

HHS

HUD

DOT

DOE

DVA

EPA

NASA

NRC

NSF

DOJ1

AID1

TVA1

SI1

1Is not a member of Full FCCSET. (DOJ = Department of Justice; AID = Agency for International Development; TVA = Tennessee Valley Authority; SI = Smithsonian Institution.)

2Participates in the Initiative but has no new program proposals for FY 1994.

3Participates in the FCCSET Committee but has no funding proposals for FY 1994 that fall within the scope of the Initiative.

[insert table 2 here]

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

Manufacturing is the foundation of the U. S. economy. Indeed, the United States was the unchallenged world leader in manufacturing for many years. This performance has slipped, however, in recent decades. Domestic university and industrial laboratories still excel at achieving basic scientific breakthroughs, such as the discovery of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology, which permits the rapid replication of DNA molecules in the test tube and has revolutionized biotechnology research. But too often, foreign firms often are better at turning technology into new products and processes both quickly and inexpensively.

The United States now has an unprecedented opportunity to accelerate the development and application of advanced manufacturing technologies -- the processes, information, and equipment needed for future competitiveness. By utilizing the Nation's technological strengths and a properly timed and coordinated research and development (R&D) program, industry, government, and academia can work together as a national team to help U. S. manufacturers play an enhanced role in domestic and international markets.

The new Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) Initiative was developed to seize this opportunity in recognition of the critical role that technology must play in stimulating and sustaining the long-term economic growth that creates high-quality jobs and protects the environment. The AMT Initiative is an R&D program that will help industry harness technology to improve the Nation's economic strength and quality of life.

The AMT Initiative will help foster a dramatic shift in the way products are manufactured in the future, supporting the transition from rigid mass production to flexible manufacturing. Such a shift will be driven by increased global competition and major advances in underlying technologies such as computer hardware and software, and is made possible by wide-bandwidth communications, sensors, product and process design, and information processing. This will result in highly competitive manufacturing enterprises, capable of responding quickly and cost-effectively to rapidly changing market demands.

Goal, Objective, and Strategies

Private industry must help define and develop new manufacturing technologies and is essential in putting them to use on the factory floor, but the Federal government can facilitate this process by supporting research and development involving pre-competitive, generic technologies and by supporting appropriate mechanisms to accelerate technology deployment, particularly among smaller manufacturers.

The goal of the AMT Initiative is to accelerate the development and application of advanced manufacturing technologies to dramatically improve the manufacturing capabilities of a broad spectrum of U.S. industries.

The strategic objective is to develop a coherent and synergistic interagency program in advanced manufacturing technology R&D by combining and integrating Federal efforts. The program will accelerate the development and application of new manufacturing technologies to the domestic manufacturing base and to the missions of the participating agencies.

A coordinated, interagency approach is needed in advanced manufacturing because the R&D activities -- and industries involved -- are so diverse. The benefits of such coordination, although difficult to measure, are significant. At a minimum, they can accelerate progress by eliminating redundant programs and by leveraging the investments of multiple agencies and industry to create a synergistic program.

To make the best use of limited R&D resources, the technical program is structured around the following thrust areas: Intelligent Manufacturing Equipment and Systems; Integrated Tools for Product, Process, and Enterprise Design; and Advanced Manufacturing Technology Infrastructure. In choosing thrust areas, the technical strategies are: (1) to address specific problems of significant scope; (2) to structure programs to achieve meaningful and realistic goals; (3) to create balanced and integrated programs with sufficient size to have a substantial impact; (4) to configure programs to ensure the development of technology that is usable and can be implemented; (5) to involve appropriate organizations from private industry, academia, and government in program planning and execution; and (6) to build upon strengths of Federal agencies in assigning responsibilities.

Major Program Components

Federally sponsored R&D spans the entire spectrum of advanced manufacturing technologies and commercial products, from mining of commodities to food and fiber processing, to techniques needed for production of sophisticated weapons systems and recycling of waste materials.

To help define the scope of the AMT Initiative, a classification framework or taxonomy was developed. In this taxonomy, advanced manufacturing R&D is grouped into four broad categories:

     ? Manufacturing Design Technologies -- including tools and 
     techniques used to prepare for manufacturing;

     ? Manufacturing Technologies -- including processes and 
     equipment used for the actual production of physical products;

     ? Supporting Technologies -- including underlying core 
     technologies needed to provide advances in design and 
     manufacturing technologies; and
     
     ? Manufacturing Infrastructure Elements -- including concepts 
     and mechanisms for managing the development of appropriate 
     technologies and for encouraging their widespread use within 
     the industrial base.

Through the FCCSET Committee on Industry and Technology's interagency Working Group on Advanced Manufacturing, the participating agencies closely coordinate their interests and expertise to cover the spectrum of advanced manufacturing R&D. As a first step, the Working Group conducted an inventory of Federal programs in advanced manufacturing
R&D. Eight agencies submitted baseline data for FY 1993: Department of Commerce (DOC); Department of Defense (DOD); Department of Energy (DOE); Department of the Interior (DOI); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Science Foundation (NSF); and Department of Agriculture (USDA).

FY 1994 Budget and Proposed Activities

The President's FY 1994 budget request for the AMT Initiative is $1.4 billion. An implementation plan will be developed in FY 1993 and early FY 1994.

Initially, AMT activities will focus on three areas. These areas were selected based on technological opportunities and anticipated technical needs as identified by the manufacturing community. Within this scope, AMT will have a major role in coordinating the Federal government's contribution to development and deployment of a new generation of automobiles, part of the President's Technology Initiative.

"Intelligent" Manufacturing Equipment and Systems

The next generation of manufacturing equipment and systems (sometimes referred to as "cells") will enable major improvements in product quality and manufacturing output and flexibility, while reducing costs, for moderate- to low-volume technology applications. Advanced equipment and systems will incorporate "intelligent" sensors and advanced control techniques, innovative machine and tooling concepts, and seamless flow of product and production information.

The overall goal is to develop, demonstrate, and promote industry deployment of the generic technology needed for widespread use of advanced equipment and systems within U. S. industries. Specific target areas include machining, electronics assembly, mechanical assembly, and food and fiber processing.

Integrated Tools for Product, Process, and Enterprise Design

Just as computer-aided design and engineering tools have revolutionized product design during the past decade, computer-based hardware and software tools for production design can revitalize manufacturing. This area encompasses the operation of the entire manufacturing enterprise.

The overall goal is to lower manufacturing costs, to reduce delivery time, and to improve product quality through the coordinated development and use of advanced tools that can have a major impact on manufacturing competitiveness. Emphasis will be placed on providing an integrated framework, operating environment, common databases, and interface standards for a wide variety of emerging tools and techniques for designing manufacturing processes, equipment, and enterprises, as well as tools for evaluating the producibility of product designs.

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Infrastructure

Programs are needed to ensure that advanced technologies and concepts are understood and used by the private sector on a broad scale. These efforts are just as important as technology development to the competitiveness of U. S. manufacturers.

Approaches may include: Greater deployment of existing technologies; accelerated use of electronic techniques for transferring business and product information by small and mediumsized manufacturers; assistance in setting up education and training programs for shop floor workers, engineers, and management personnel in leading manufacturing practices; new mechanisms for monitoring and analyzing international developments and trends in manufacturing technology; and development of benchmarks or metrics that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of manufacturing improvements.

Accomplishments to Date and Evaluation Activities

Baseline data have been collected on existing Federal R&D programs in advanced manufacturing, and an initial set of FY 1994 proposals have been developed in accordance with the three selected areas. The overall AMT program for FY 1994 has been reviewed and discussed with numerous companies and manufacturing groups, and the current plan reflects these inputs. A more formal evaluation is scheduled for FY 1995.

Industry has been involved in the planning process, as permitted by Federal regulations. Industry representatives originally proposed many elements of the AMT Initiative and have conducted a limited program review. In the future, industry will play an expanded role in defining AMT priorities and in suggesting R&D strategies and programs. Industry input will be used to help further define the program in FY 1995.

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

         HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING 
              AND COMMUNICATIONS

THE HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS INITIATIVE:

TOWARD A NATIONAL INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE

The High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) FCCSET Initiative is developing computing, communications, and software technologies for the 21st century.

Now in its third year, the HPCC Initiative is making progress toward providing the higher speed computing and communications capabilities and advanced software needed in critical research and development programs. The HPCC Initiative will be fully supportive and coordinated with the emerging National Information Infrastructure (NII) Initiative, which is part of the President's and Vice President's Technology Initiative released February 22, 1993.

The NII is the platform of advanced computing, communications, information, and human resources upon which industry, government, and academia can integrate their information functions. This will enable the creation and delivery of new services that will improve competitiveness and benefit all citizens. CEOs of the nation's leading telecommunications and computer companies have acknowledged in landmark policy statements that the HPCC Initiative is laying the foundation for the NII.

To enable the NII Initiative to build on the HPCC Program, the FCCSET High Performance Computing and Communications and Information Technology Subcommittee has made several strategic and programmatic modifications. The most significant of these is the inclusion of a new program component, Information Infrastructure Technology and Applications (IITA). It consists of key research and development to enable the integration of critical information systems and the applications of these systems to National Challenges.

These collaborations will develop and apply high performance computing and communications technologies to improve information systems for National Challenges such as design and manufacturing, health care, education, digital libraries, environmental monitoring, energy demand management, public safety, and national security. Working with industry, IITA will support the development of the NII and the development of the computer, network, and database technology needed to provide appropriate privacy and security protection for users.

The President's FY 1994 budget requests $1 billion for the HPCC Initiative plus $96 million for the new IITA component.

HPCC Goals and Strategic Priorities

The HPCC Program is organized into five integrated components. Their goals and strategic priorities are to:

HPCS (High Performance Computing Systems) -- Extend U.S. technological leadership in high performance computing through the development of scalable computing systems, with associated software, capable of sustaining at least one trillion operations per second (teraops) performance. Scalable parallel and distributed computing systems will be able to support workstation users through the largest-scale highest-performance systems. Workstations will extend into portable wireless interfaces as technology advances. NREN (National Research and Education Network) -- Extend U.S. technology leadership in computer communications by a program of research and development that advances the leading edge of networking technology and services. NREN will widen the research and education community's access to high performance computing and research centers and to electronic information resources and libraries. This will accelerate the development and deployment of networking technologies by the telecommunications industry. This includes nationwide prototypes for terrestrial, satellite, wireless, and wireline communications systems, including fiber optics, with common protocol support and application interfaces.

ASTA (Advance Software Technology and Algorithms) -- Demonstrate prototype solutions to Grand Challenge problems through the development of advanced algorithms and software and the use of HPCC resources. Grand Challenge problems are computationally intensive problems such as forecasting weather, predicting climate, improving environmental quality, building more energy-efficient cars and airplanes, designing better drugs, and conducting basic scientific research.

IITA (Information Infrastructure Technology and Applications) -- Demonstrate prototype solutions to National Challenge problems using HPCC enabling technologies. This will support integrated systems technology demonstration projects for critical National Challenge applications through development of intelligent systems interfaces. These will include systems development environments with support for virtual reality, image understanding, language and speech understanding, and data and object bases for electronic libraries and commerce.

BRHR (Basic Research and Human Resources) -- Support research, training, and education in computer science, computer engineering, and the computational sciences and enhance the infrastructure through the addition of HPCC resources. Initiation of pilot projects for K-12 and lifelong learning will support expansion of the NII.

Private Sector Coordination

Close cooperation between the Federal government and industry is essential if technology developed by the HPCC Initiative is to be effectively used to build an advanced NII. Both individually and as members of the HPCC Initiative, the participating agencies collaborate with industrial partners, fund research and development in the private sector, and work with representatives to plan the HPCC Program. In addition, a High Performance Computing Advisory Committee will be established consisting of representatives from the private sector and academia.

HPCC Agencies: Roles, Accomplishments To Date, Implementation Plans, and FY 1994 Proposed Activities

No individual agency has either the mission or the expertise to develop all components of the infrastructure, but each plays a unique role. Agencies participate in the HPCC Program in support of their individual missions, overall Program goals, or both. The 10 participating agencies will develop a coordinated strategy for the formal evaluation of the HPCC Program in FY 1994. The agencies and their roles are:

The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) coordinates the advanced computing and networking technologies needed by the program. ARPA supports projects throughout academia and industry to accelerate innovation and the transition of advanced concepts into new technologies for use within the program and the defense and national technology base. The projects are developing the full range of technologies needed for a scalable technology base of interoperating workstations, networks, and parallel computing systems with mass storage, systems software and development tools. This will enable solution of the Grand Challenges and other National Challenges while providing the foundation for a NII.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports advanced fundamental research in HPCC technologies and their application to science and engineering problems. While coordinating the NREN component, NSF is upgrading NSFNET backbone services, deploying networking information services, increasing network connections, and expanding gigabit research and development. NSF supercomputer centers are collaborating towards a "metacenter." NSF enables coordinated approaches to Grand Challenge problems, and addresses algorithm and software technology issues. Expanded IITA research includes distributed databases and digital libraries, multimedia computing and visualization, and image recognition.

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds HPCC research on parallel systems, software, and gigabit networks technology. It funds Grand Challenge research in future energy sources, fusion energy, combustion, environmental remediation, ground water flow, petroleum reservoir modeling, atmospheric and ocean modeling, and structural biology. DOE supports high performance computing centers and the Energy Sciences network, ESNET. Collaborations between DOE investigators and industry include a joint effort by DOE, NASA, six major industrial firms, and the National Storage Laboratory to address the pressing mass storage problems. IITA research includes areas such as energy demand management and telecommuting.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) high performance computing centers address Grand Challenge problems such as improving advanced aerospace vehicles (including high speed civil transport); modeling the interactions among the atmosphere, oceans, and land masses; deploying NASA's high performance NREN; and managing huge volumes of space data. NASA coordinates the ASTA component's software sharing activity, and participates in gigabit network research. IITA efforts include increasing accessibility of remotely sensed data, and developing technologies to manipulate these large volumes of data.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its National Library of Medicine, National Center for Research Resources, Division of Computer Research and Technology, and the Biomedical Supercomputer Center of the National Cancer Institute, develops algorithms and software in molecular biology (including comparison of genetic and protein sequence data) and biomedical imaging for high performance systems; develops prototype biomedical digital image libraries; provides NREN access to researchers and medical centers. NIH IITA efforts will expand technology development for telemedicine, medical record management, and medical imagery.

The National Security Agency (NSA), Department of Defense, conducts research in all aspects of highly heterogeneous computing environments, including specialized high speed hardware. NSA focuses on interoperability, increased performance, network and computer security, mass storage, and gigabit networks. NSA promotes research in high
performance computing including superconductivity and ultra high-speed-switching at its own facilities, in industry, and at universities.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, conducts Grand Challenge research in climate prediction and weather forecasting, and disseminates environmental data. By exploiting the computing power of scalable parallel systems, global ocean and atmosphere models will accurately represent weather fronts and ocean eddies, and distortions due to clouds can be eliminated. In support of this research, NOAA is acquiring scalable systems and enhancing NREN connectivity. Within the IITA component, NOAA is investigating environmental monitoring, prediction and assessment applications, and expanding efforts to make its environmental data more accessible.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts Grand Challenge research in air and water pollution management. The research focuses on improving environmental decision-making and policy support tools, improving NREN connectivity, and developing and implementing training programs, particularly for state and environmental groups. EPA is integrating user-friendly advanced assessment tools into a high performance computing environment, which will include a scalable parallel system to enable more complex multipollutant and multimedia assessments.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Department of Commerce, develops instrumentation and performance measurement methods for high performance computing and networking systems; develops security policies and technologies for the NREN; facilitates the development of appropriate voluntary standards; and designs and implements methods for organizing, documenting, and disseminating software. As the coordinating agency for manufacturing applications, NIST will establish an advanced manufacturing systems and networking testbed. NIST will work closely with DOC's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). NTIA has a key role in developing Federal telecommunications policy and funding networking pilot projects at schools, libraries, and other non-profit institutions.

The Department of Education (ED) sponsors program initiatives and activities through its regional laboratories and research centers. The Department will provide information to educators and students in K-12 and lifelong learning about high performance computing and networking application resources. It promotes initiatives in training, curriculum development, library connectivity and research and development projects that support the emerging information infrastructure.

A variety of education and training programs are offered by the HPCC agencies, particularly NSF, DOE, NASA, NIH, and EPA.

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM

U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM INITIATIVE

I. GOALS AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

Policy Goal
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Initiative was conceived to provide scientific understanding of global change. The initiative is policy-relevant and hence supports the timely needs of the United States and its cooperation with other nations to address the scientific uncertainties related to natural and human-induced changes in the Earth's environment.

Scientific Goal
The scientific goal of the USGCRP is to gain a predictive understanding of the interactive physical, geological, chemical, biological, economic, and social processes that regulate the total Earth system. This will help establish a scientific basis for national and international policy formulation and decisions relating to natural and human-induced changes in the global environment and their regional impacts. The scientific program of the USGCRP addresses Earth system processes that vary on time scales ranging from seasonal to many decades, even over several centuries.

Strategic Priorities
The key strategic priorities of USGCRP are to address uncertainties important to policy issues, including:

Determining if human-induced global changes have been observed,
Predicting future regional and global changes with improved levels of confidence,
Determining the impacts associated with predicted changes, and
Assessing likely responses of economic, social, and other human systems to changing environmental conditions.

II. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

The primary responsibility for developing and implementing the projects and program elements of the USGCRP resides with the participating agencies. The primary responsibility of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (SGCR) of the FCCSET Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES) is coordination of total program development, integration of scientific elements, and overall program evaluation and review. In accordance with the provisions of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606), specific responsibilities of the CEES include: (1) developing the research plan and overseeing its implementation; (2) improving cooperation among participating agencies; (3) providing budgetary advice; (4) working with non-Federal parties to provide public and peer review of the program; (5) providing representation at international meetings on global change research and coordinating U.S. activities on global change with other international programs; (6) providing scientific bases for policy decisions; and (7) providing regular reports on the progress and needs of the Program. The primary organizational arrangement within the CEES/SGCR is based on four Program Working Groups, one for each of the four scientific streams of activity of the program: documenting, understanding, predicting and assessing global change. The Office of the USGCRP has been established to support the coordination of USGCRP program activities across all USGCRP agencies. III. RATIONALE FOR COORDINATED, INTERAGENCY APPROACH

The USGCRP responds to both the guidance provided by the OMB and the FCCSET in designating the USGCRP as a National Research Program (June 1992) and to the requirements for interagency planning, implementation, and accountability set forth in P.L. 101-606. The USGCRP draws upon the strengths of existing fundamental disciplines within the agencies participating in the USGCRP to develop the required interdisciplinary scientific approaches that an integrated and comprehensive global change research program demands.

IV. MAJOR PROGRAM COMPONENTS

To fulfill the goals and address the strategic priorities of the USGCRP, four parallel but interconnected streams of national and international activity have been developed:

Observations and Data Management: the establishment of an integrated, comprehensive, long-term program of Earth system observations and data management on a global scale;
Process Research: the development of a program of focussed studies to improve knowledge of the physical, geological, chemical, biological, and social processes that influence and govern Earth system behavior and our knowledge of the impact of global change on human health and activities;
Integrated Modeling and Prediction: the development and application of integrated conceptual and predictive Earth system models; and
Assessments: the documentation and assessment of the state of scientific knowledge and uncertainties and the implications of the science of global change to support national and international policymaking activities over a broad spectrum of global and regional environmental issues. V. AGENCY ROLES

At the outset of the Program, the CEES developed a set of statements that specifically defined each agency's role in the Program (see The FY 1990 Research Plan). The process of role definition has been extended through annual listings of both focussed and contributing programs by agency in the Our Changing Planet series published annually by the CEES since 1990.

VI. FY 1994 BUDGET AND PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The budget proposes $1.5 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program Initiative. The FY 1994 USGCRP includes the following:

Long-Term Observations and Data Management: Funding for global observations and data management is planned to support ground- and space-based observational programs and activities in global change information and data management. The Earth Observing System (EOS) will continue to be developed for a planned launch in 1998, with the goals of providing at least 15 years of global observations from satellites and making that data available to researchers worldwide. Both ground- and space-based observations and studies will include such measurements as: the atmospheric distribution of greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone; terrestrial sources and sinks for carbon and changes in land cover; and measurements relating to polar ice sheets and ocean circulation. Considerable effort will be put into incorporating a broad spectrum of existing data sets into the global change data management stream to substantially enhance the data available to the broader community of those interested in global change. The FY 1994 program also includes a major advance in research and development for the improvement of data archiving and accessing systems and interagency implementation of the Global Change Data and Information System (GCDIS). Related international development and planning will also be continuing in many nations and international organizations on a comprehensive global climate observing system (GCOS) and the associated Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) as part of the overall integrated database needed for broad predictive capabilities by the 21st century.
Process Research: Funding is planned for process research to enhance understanding of key processes that control climate and other aspects of global environmental change. Of central importance is continued support for national and international programs aimed at improved understanding of: (i) processes that control the global carbon cycle; (ii) the role of clouds and aerosols in atmospheric radiation budgets; (iii) the role of the ocean in climate change; (iv) the relationships between global change and terrestrial/marine ecosystems; and (v) the impact of human activities on natural systems and human responses to changing environmental conditions.
Integrated Earth System Modeling: Funding is planned for predictive Earth system modeling with emphasis on accelerating the pace of coupled model development, increasing coordination among Federal agencies and researchers in model development, application and experimentation, improving regional resolution for modeling and prediction of climate change, and developing and using new computational tools for future applications.
Assessment: In FY 1994, the USGCRP will add an explicit focus on assessment, seeking to improve substantially our understanding of the state of scientific knowledge and the implications of that knowledge for national and international policymaking activities. This new focus on assessment covers a broad spectrum of global, national, and regional environmental issues.

VII. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES:

The USGCRP undergoes regular evaluation of the overall program and its management in the context of the advancement of the scientific knowledge and understanding of global change. This review involves academic, state, industry, and other groups conducting global change research and is independent and conducted by bodies outside the CEES and the FCCSET process, and often outside the government.

Significant advances were made in the USGCRP last year toward documenting, understanding, and predicting global environmental change. Examples include:

Detection of ozone decreases throughout the year in both southern and northern hemispheres in mid- to high-latitudes through satellite observations of total column ozone from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS), coupled with in-situ measurements;
Detection and global mapping of a large plume of sulfur dioxide associated with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo;
Development of an improved understanding of the quantitative importance of aerosols in the Earth's radiation budget and the impacts they have on climate;
Improvement of the observations, understanding, and modeling of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle;
Identification of sinks for excess carbon dioxide and methane, which account for some of the "missing" carbon in the global carbon budget;
Improvement in the estimates of rates of global deforestation; and
Improvement in modeling of ecosystem functions on the scale of entire continents with improved accuracy.

VIII. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

International global research aspects of the USGCRP are actively coordinated with those of other countries through a broad range of international arrangements. U.S. scientists work directly and very closely with their foreign counterparts in the planning of specific global change research programs of the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), core projects of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), and national and international programs in the human dimensions of global environmental change. These programs are undertaken in close cooperation with intergovernmental organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the United National Environment Program (UNEP). A particular focus in these efforts is the creation of global change research institutes, particularly to address regional implications of global change. The first of these institutes, the Inter-American Institute (IAI) for Global Change Research, was established in 1992. In FY 1994, funds are requested to establish an institution to accelerate programs in interannual climate prediction. This initiative was announced in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) document "U.S. Actions for a Better Environment: A Sustained Commitment."

IX. PRIVATE SECTOR COORDINATION

The CEES maintains a formal mechanism to coordinate the interests of industry, business, commerce, and non-governmental environmental groups with the USGCRP. The coordination with the private sector is fostered through a special CEES Working Group on Private Enterprise-Government Interactions (PEGI). The CEES will continue to facilitate interactions with other non-governmental groups interested in global change by scheduling periodic briefings and other activities for such groups.

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PROCESSING

THE ADVANCED MATERIALS AND PROCESSING INITIATIVE

The Nation's economic prosperity, environmental well-being, and quality of life are linked to the development of advanced materials and processing technologies. Improved materials and processes can contribute to increased energy efficiency, improved environmental quality, sustained national security, reduced health-care costs, development of information "superhighways", reconstruction of the infrastructure, and production of new transportation vehicles that will carry the Nation into the 21st century.

In FY 1994, the Advanced Materials and Processing (AMP) Initiative will be a $2 billion Federal initiative, with additional support from industry for joint projects. The AMP is an investment in growth, both to meet national goals and to extend U. S. leadership in materials science and technology. The initiative encompasses both basic and applied research, supporting the full continuum of activities required for innovation and application. The Federal government has invested in materials research and development (R&D) for many years, successfully achieving the goals of individual agencies and providing the scientific and educational basis for international pre-eminence in the field. The global competitive challenges of the 1990s, however, demand an expanded effort. A coordinated, interagency approach is needed to increase the effectiveness of the Federal initiative by leveraging government research through coordinated planning and by expanding dialogue and partnerships with industry. The initiative will exploit new capabilities to design advanced materials and cost-efficient, environmentally conscious processes to meet industrial needs.

Accomplishments

Now in its first year, the AMP already has had a significant impact. The spotlight on advanced materials and processing has heightened the emphasis on these topics in the participating agencies. The inventory of all active Federal materials R&D programs conducted during development of the AMP provided a foundation for the initiative, and it serves as an invaluable, comprehensive guide to Federal programs for private-sector organizations interested in leveraging their R&D resources.

At the technical level, communication and coordination among agencies and with the private sector are increasing, materials R&D has been re-oriented toward AMP priorities, and collaborative activities are being expanded -- with direct benefits to the private sector.

Coordinated planning of technical programs in air and land transportation vehicles has been underway for some time. During FY 1993, multi-agency planning in cooperation with the relevant private sector groups has been initiated in four technical areas: structural ceramics, infrastructure and construction materials, materials for electronic packaging, and metal casting. The results of these planning exercises will be emphasized in new initiative directions in FY 1994 and beyond, thereby heightening the emphasis on goal-oriented, technology-driven programs. During FY 1994, joint planning activities will be extended to address additional topic areas.

Structure of the AMP

The goal of the AMP is to improve the manufacture and performance of materials to enhance the Nation's quality of life, security, industrial productivity, and economic growth. To achieve this overall goal, programs are designed in accordance with four strategic objectives, which concern broad national needs:

Establish and maintain the U.S. scientific and technological leadership position in advanced materials and processing;
Bridge the gap between innovation and application of advanced materials technologies;
Support agencies' mission objectives to meet national needs with improvements in advanced materials and processing; and
Encourage university and private-sector R&D activities in materials technologies, their applications, and their implementation.

The AMP implementation plan incorporates strategies for increasing multi-agency communication, expanding private-sector involvement in the planning process and in the execution of the R&D agenda, and evaluating the success of the initiative.

Multi-agency communication and private sector involvement will be enhanced through interagency task groups. Each task group focuses on a different material or applications category. These groups vary in purpose and will continue to evolve, but in general they serve as bridges to the private sector and develop research plans to be used for future development of the AMP.

Effectiveness of the AMP will be evaluated primarily by success in achieving technical milestones. In addition, a set of quantitative measures will be used to assess annual increases in cooperation between the government and the private sector.

In the technical program, the AMP priorities are synthesis and processing; and theory, modeling, and simulation. These areas were emphasized in a major National Research Council study on materials science and engineering that incorporated considerable input from industry.

AMP activities are divided into five technical components, each identified as critical to sustained progress in materials science and technology:

Synthesis and processing -- encompassing the creation of new materials and processes, applied R&D to transfer laboratory achievements to pilot plants, and process integration with design and manufacturing requirements;
Theory, modeling, and simulation -- exploiting U.S. leadership in computational techniques to expand quantitative understanding of complex materials and processing technologies;
Materials characterization -- focusing on the interrelationships among structure, composition, properties, and performance (this basic knowledge is critical to the expedient and confident use of new materials);
Education and human resources -- assuring a continued supply of qualified educators and practitioners in the multidisciplinary field of materials science and engineering; and
Major national user facilities -- providing sources of photons, neutrons, and high magnetic fields to characterize the structure, composition and properties of materials.

Technical Activities

Each participating agency focuses on aspects of materials R&D relevant to the agency's missions and cooperates with other agencies in areas of common interest. The ten participating departments and agencies are:

Department of Commerce (DOC)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) National Science Foundation (NSF)
Department of Agriculture (USDA)

The President's FY 1994 budget request for the AMP is $2.1 billion.

The following are examples of activities that will be pursued under the AMP:

Energy -- R&D to improve the characteristics and lower the cost of superconducting materials for use in electric power lines;

Environment -- development of new refrigerant materials to replace man-made ozone-depleting compounds such as chloroflourocarbons (CFCs), and biodegradable plastics for use in packaging and fast food containers;

National Security -- development of "intelligent" materials and processes to reduce the cost and increase the performance of military systems;

Health and Safety -- development of biomaterials R&D to improve the suitability and durability of biomedical implants, such as artificial joints and organs;

Information and Communication -- development of new electronic packaging materials that will permit maximum use of advanced electronic devices;

Infrastructure -- development of long-lasting pavement and construction materials such as high-strength concrete; and

Transportation -- development of advanced composites and costeffective processes that will enable commercial production of lightweight, safe, energy-efficient automobiles.

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE

Biotechnology is a burgeoning industry worldwide, promising profound impact on the fore-front of innovative technologies in health care, agriculture, energy, and environmental management. By the year 2000, the biotechnology industry is projected to have sales reaching $50 billion in the United States. Development and production of biotechnological products will create thousands of new jobs and promote renewed economic growth, and has the potential of helping address agricultural, environmental, and health concerns in developing countries. Biotechnology-related industry in the U.S. is characterized by very close linkage to its research base; progress in biotechnology has been and will continue to be strongly dependent on technology development and commercialization.

Over the past three decades, with basic fundamental research support from the Federal government, the United States has become the international leader in biotechnology research, development, and commercialization. Because of increasing competition, however, our leadership in biotechnology is diminishing. The goal of the Biotechnology Research Initiative is to sustain and extend U.S. leadership in biotechnology research for the 21st century, in order to enhance the quality of life for all Americans, and to spur the growth of this important component of a healthy U.S. economy.

The following departments and agencies are participating in the Biotechnology Research Initiative:

Agency for International Development     Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture               Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services Department of the Interior Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Department of Justice Food and Drug Administration Department of Veterans Affairs
National Institutes of Health Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Commerce National Aeronautics & Space
National Institute for Standards and Technology Administration National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Science Foundation

Categories of Activity

The Biotechnology Research Subcommittee (BRS) of the FCCSET Committee on Life Sciences and Health has performed an in-depth analysis of agency biotechnology programs in three categories: research area, infrastructure, and social impact research.

Research Infrastructure Social Impact Research

   Agriculture         Facilities
   Energy           Instrumentation
   Environment         Databases
   General foundations    Repositories
   Health                            Training/Career development

Manufacturing & bioprocessing

In addition, the BRS identified four areas that merit special analysis: genome projects, marine biotechnology, structural biology, and technology transfer.

All of the agencies are sensitive to the need for accelerating transfer of biotechnology research discoveries to commercial applications, and the BRS has addressed this issue through its Working Group on Technology Transfer. Also, human resource foundations for the future development of biotechnology are an integral part of several agency programs.

Strategic Objectives and Initiatives for Implementation

Over the past several months, the participating agencies have developed an integrated research strategy and identified the following four strategic objectives:

Extend the fundamental scientific and technical foundations for the future development of biotechnology;
Ensure the development of the human resource foundations for the future development of biotechnology;
Accelerate the transfer of biotechnology research discoveries to commercial applications; and
Realize the benefits of biotechnology to the health and wellbeing of the population and the protection and restoration of the environment.

The goal and strategic objectives have been used to analyze research needs and opportunities for biotechnology research. As a result of this analysis, eight strategic initiatives are proposed. Each strategic initiative addresses an area of critical need that falls within the mandates of multiple Federal agencies and that will influence multiple areas of application. Implementation of these strategic initiatives will enhance the national effort in biotechnology.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Increase support for health-related biotechnology research to capitalize on the opportunity for applications to human health, and closely coordinate the effort among the Federal agencies;
Increase the Federal investment in biotechnology research related to the environment and coordinate the effort closely among Federal agencies;
Increase the Federal investment in biotechnology research related to manufacturing and bioprocessing and closely coordinate Federal agency efforts;
Maintain strong support for broadly applicable general foundations research to sustain the momentum of progress in all areas of biotechnology;
Enhance existing programs and establish new programs to facilitate the study and utilization of organisms not currently under investigation in the laboratory;
Increase emphasis on research and infrastructure dedicated to the investigation of the structure and function of macromolecules (i.e., proteins and nucleic acids);
Strengthen and expand interdisciplinary research in biotechnology, and the infrastructure for such research; and
Increase training programs at all levels to provide the

FY 1994 Budget and Proposed Activities

The FY 1994 Biotechnology Research budget request is $4.3 billion. Because of the current state of scientific knowledge, we are now in a period in which continued strong funding support and improved coordination will catalyze the development of key advances in many areas of biotechnology, including more effective disease diagnosis and treatment and environmental protection and restoration.

Many Federal biotechnology activities are characterized by multiagency participation, which is coordinated through the FCCSET process---such as numerous human, plant, and animal genome projects. Other examples of areas needing increased emphasis and cooperation include the following:

? Biotechnology research programs on environmental remediation

(DOE, DOI, EPA, NASA, NOAA, NSF, and USDA) ? Gene therapy (FDA, NIH)
? Vaccine development (AID, CDC, DOD, FDA, NIH, and USDA) ? Structural biology (DOE, FDA, NASA, NIH, NIST and NSF) ? Food safety (AID, FDA, NIH, NOAA, and USDA) ? Marine biotechnology (DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, EPA, FDA, NIH, NSF, and

USDA)
? Manufacturing and bioprocessing (DHHS, DOD, DOE, DOI, NASA, NIST,

NSF, and USDA)

The BRS has proposed that biotechnology research related to health and the environment be highlighted in FY 1994 and receive detailed evaluation and coordination of efforts among the agencies. These two broad areas of application are inherently part of critical national issues. The increased attention to the contribution of biotechnology to these areas is, therefore, particularly warranted. At the same time, however, the BRS urges continued strong commitment to the strategic importance of the other areas of biotechnology research. Agriculture, energy, general foundations, and manufacturing and bioprocessing research all share in far-reaching potential that can only be met in the near future with continued strong support. Indeed, basic fundamental research drives advances in all components of biotechnology, as advances in manufacturing and bioprocessing underpin implementation.

Health

Advances in health-related biotechnology could be of enormous value in containing spiralling health care costs through new diagnostic, prevention, and treatment techniques. More than 1,000 clinical trials are currently in progress using biotechnology-derived pharmaceuticals and there are over 400 biotechnology-derived clinical diagnostic devices that are currently being used in clinical practice. The recent successful cloning of blood clotting factors VIII and IX could lead to the development of better therapy for hemophiliacs, realizing a significant cost savings over the life of these patients. Biotechnology has also resulted in the newly emerging field of gene therapy. Gene therapy trials have recently been approved in the U.S. for the treatment of cystic fibrosis and other inherited disorders, cancer, and AIDS. The possibilities for the prevention and treatment of disease through the use of biotechnology are enormous.
Health-related biotechnology encompasses a broad spectrum of basic and applied research, including:

Vaccine development Diagnostics Transgenic animal model development DNA manipulation Therapeutics Novel computing methods (databases)

Tissue engineering Alcohol, drug abuse, and mental health

   Novel drug delivery systems       Instrumentation
   Medical devices                 Food nutrition

Food-borne contaminants and toxins

These areas all have a direct relation to health and, in particular, more definitive identification and treatment for a variety of diseases. Strong Federal research programs stimulate industry to develop new products. More innovative product development will require the enhancement and emergence of new interdisciplinary research areas at the interface of biology and engineering. In turn, many of the advances in health-related biotechnology will be applicable to non-health areas.

Environment

Environmental technologies need to take full advantage of the tools of molecular biology that can be used to reduce, manage, or remedy problems of environmental pollution, clean-up, and prevention. Even more fundamental, however, is the use of biotechnology research to provide a basis for new approaches for determining complex ecological relationships and for managing ecosystems. Bioremediation, expected to be a $300 million industry by 1995, relates both to ecosystem management and to reduction of human health risks. New technologies are needed for the full potential of bioremediation to be realized, however. Biotechnology promises the development of efficient and effective biotreatment systems. It will also provide methods to elucidate the environmental fate of biological agents used in treatment systems, to identify the metabolic products of treatment processes, and to determine environmental factors that promote bioremediation. Given the wellknown problems associated with oil spills and multiple contaminants at hazardous waste sites, further research is essential for successfully scaling the scientific and engineering barriers to the remediation of remote and complex waste mixtures. Understanding the fundamental aspects of safe application of biotechnology products, including the development and use of environmentally benign alternatives to chemical pesticides, will allow Federal regulatory agencies to insure appropriate oversight without impeding technology development and commercialization.

FY 1994 FCCSET INITIATIVE

      SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING,
           AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

                 SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, 
                 AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION INITIATIVE

The Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education (SMETE) Initiative provides a coordinated Federal strategy that will help to ensure U.S. world leadership in basic science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, build a highly trained work force, and increase public understanding of science. This strategy, developed by the FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEHR), covers the five-year period 1994-1998.

CEHR used the National Education Goals as a guide in developing this programmatic and budgetary framework for the improvement of mathematics, science and technology education at all levels. This framework outlines specific milestones that focus Federal planning and resources toward achieving the requisite or expected level of mathematics and science competence by all students.

Federal efforts are intended to support and encourage State and local activities designed to strengthen science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education.

Rationale for Coordinated, Interagency Approach: The challenges presented by the National Education Goals cut across the missions of many Federal agencies; the solutions reside in the collaborative effort of all agencies. The CEHR strategy enables member agencies and other policymakers to take a global view of the entire Federal response to mathematics and science education and gives them a basis for revising priorities or emphases in their own agencies in a manner that results in a coordinated Federal effort to help meet the National Education Goals.

Agency Roles: The roles that CEHR agencies play in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education vary by their size, mission, and educational level of emphasis. Total spending by agency is shown on the accompanying figure. Within each educational level, the investment of each agency varies significantly. NSF and ED, for example, represent over 80 percent of the elementary and secondary program funding; DOD, NSF, and HHS represent nearly 80 percent of undergraduate funding; and HHS, DOD, and NSF account for 90 percent of graduate funding. Major agency participants in public understanding of science include DOI, NSF, HHS, DOE, and the Smithsonian. While ED and NSF provide broad support for mathematics and science education, mission agencies generally make unique contributions in subject areas related to their science and technology mission.

Accomplishments to Date: Since its inception in 1990, CEHR can cite a number of accomplishments, all of which have served as the foundation for the development of the five-year Strategy. In 1990: first comprehensive inventory of existing Federal science/mathematics education programs; first coordinated Federal budget; establishment of objectives and priorities. In 1991: FY 1993 budget crosscut; agency program review conducted; task forces on pre-college, undergraduate, graduate, and public science literacy formed and reports completed. In 1992: first 5-year (FY 1994-1998) Strategic Plan developed; first budget crosscut (FY 1994) developed to support the Strategy; sub-group reports on K-12, undergraduate, graduate, public science literacy, technical education, educational technology, and evaluation prepared; expert panels on educational technology, public understanding of science, and evaluation formed. In 1993: implementation of Strategy underway.

Strategic Objectives and Priorities: The strategic planning framework for the initiative outlines the strategic objectives, implementation priorities, and implementation components of the CEHR strategy. Different priorities are identified for each component of the education continuum to foster reform in mathematics and science education. The strategy for the initiative is predicated on the need to maintain the integrity and strength of programs in each area. All are interdependent and each plays a critical role in meeting the relevant National Education Goals; pursuing the CEHR strategy will support efforts to ensure America?s future economic and technological competitiveness by making today's mathematics and science education relevant to tomorrow's workplace.

Major Program Components: The strategy for the initiative confirms the Federal government's commitment to promote the health and wellbeing of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at all levels and in all sectors (i.e., elementary, secondary, undergraduate, graduate, public understanding of science, and technology education). The strategy endorses a broad range of ongoing activities, including strong Federal support for graduate education as the backbone of our country?s research and development enterprise.

The strategy for the initiative identifies a four-part Priority Framework: the Base Program (programs that provide the foundation necessary to achieve the National Education Goals and the goals of the Strategic Plan that constitute the framework on which the specific milestones are built); Tier I: Reforming the Formal Education System - Elementary and Secondary Systemic Reform, Undergraduate Revitalization, and Evaluation; Tier II: Expanding Participation and Access - Increased Participation of Underrepresented Groups, Dissemination, and Educational Technologies; and Tier III: Enabling Activities -Partnerships and Public Understanding of Science. The priorities are presented in descending order with goals that address issues meriting special attention in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Within each tier, individual agency programs play important and often unique roles that strengthen the aggregate portfolio.

Implementation Plans: The priorities and milestones identified in the strategy for the initiative address areas of responsibility from kindergarten through postgraduate education, as well as public understanding of science and technology education. These priorities and milestones serve as the road map for all CEHR activities. The CEHR Subcommittee on Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education (SMETE) and its working groups are responsible for monitoring progress toward achieving the milestones and ensuring interagency coordination and communication in implementing all components of the strategy.

FY 1994 Budget and Proposed Activities: The President's 1994 budget proposes the investment of $2.33 billion in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education programs. Eleven agencies have programs in the 1994 budget (DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, ED, EPA, HHS, NASA, NSF, SI, USDA). These resources would allow the CEHR agencies to implement the first stages of a comprehensive strategy for the reform of mathematics and science education at all levels.

The proposed FY 1994 budget is consistent with the priorities established by CEHR to achieve the mathematics- and science-related National Education Goals. There are two categories of priorities:

Strategic Implementation Priorities that address the entire education continuum, i.e. kindergarten through adult:

? Elementary and Secondary System Reform. For FY 1994, CEHR

programs will foster systemic reform at the elementary and secondary level through support for: the development and implementation of voluntary systems of national standards in science and mathematics as well as support for the following activities tied to these standards: the assessment of student performance in mathematics and science; the development of comprehensive curriculum models; intensive in-service training for teachers; and reform of teacher preparation programs.

? Undergraduate Revitalization. The 1994 budget contributes to the

revitalization of undergraduate education by supporting the revision and updating of the lower-division curriculum, providing undergraduate teaching faculty with research experiences, and providing various forms of financial assistance to students.

? Graduate Education. To maintain the United States? preeminent

system of graduate education, the 1994 budget would continue to fund pre-and post-doctoral student support programs.

? Public Understanding of Science. The 1994 budget includes

support for programs designed to increase the ability of all members of the general public to make informed decisions on science-related issues, as well as for the development of standards for public science literacy.

? Technology Education. This will be an area of emphasis in 1993

and 1994. CEHR, in conjunction with the Committee on Industry and Technology, supports efforts to develop a strategy for technical worker training.

2. Crosscutting Priorities that apply to all stages of the education continuum:

? Increasing the Use of Educational Technologies. In support of

the President?s attempt to make school a high-performance workplace, in 1993 and 1994 CEHR will develop and implement a national vision for the Federal investment in educational technologies.

? Increasing Participation of Underrepresented Groups. In 1993,

the CEHR will develop a strategy to maximize the impact of both new and current resources in this vital area. For 1994, several new initiatives focus on this particular need.

? Identification and Dissemination of Exemplary Materials. CEHR

will develop a set of quality standards for materials to be developed by agencies. To coordinate current dissemination efforts, CEHR will also develop a strategy that utilizes the most recent technology, including INTERNET and NREN.

? Educational Partnerships. In 1993 and 1994, CEHR will encourage

development of partnerships between two-year colleges and other sectors, including high schools, 4-year colleges, universities, and business and industry.

Evaluation Activities: Evaluation is the basis for measuring results, ensuring accountability, and strengthening programs; therefore, CEHR has identified evaluation as a key component of the overall strategy for the initiative. The 1994 budget allows CEHR agencies to begin the process of evaluating each of their highestpriority programs by 1995. Several CEHR agencies, including ED, NSF, DOE, and NASA, have evaluated their programs for a number of years. Expertise developed through these evaluations will be shared among all CEHR agencies as a new coordinated evaluation strategy is implemented. Under NSF leadership, CEHR is in the process of developing a coordinated strategy for the ongoing evaluation of member agencies - programs. This evaluation strategy will benefit from agency experience and from recommendations by an Evaluation Expert Panel. This Panel, comprised of outside experts, will report to CEHR in 1993 on agencies' evaluation practices and future needs.

Private Sector Coordination: In implementing the initiative, CEHR works with the private sector in several ways. First, CEHR widely disseminated the strategy for the initiative to organizations and individuals interested and participating in education reform. These groups have been encouraged to comment on the strategy; the response has been favorable and recommendations are being addressed.

Second, a number of CEHR-agency programs are collaborative efforts with the private sector. For example, by 1996, CEHR agencies, in cooperation with industry, will expand programs and activities to provide research-related experiences at university, Federal, and industrial laboratories for at least 16,000 undergraduate faculty involved in teaching science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.

Finally, individual CEHR agencies are working with the private sector to develop stronger linkages to achieve the goal of world leadership in basic science, mathematics and engineering. CEHR sponsored two key workshops in 1992 to increase understanding of private sector activities: (1) Applications of Telecommunications in Mathematics and
Science Education; and (2) Expert Forum on Public Understanding of Science. Federal Coordinating Council for

Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET)

REPORT REQUEST FORM

I WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE COPIES OF THE FULL REPORTS ON THE FOLLOWING FY 1994 BUDGET INITIATIVES WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE (APPROXIMATELY JUNE 30, 1993):

___ Advanced Manufacturing Technology

___ High Performance Computing and Communications

___ Global Change Research

___ Advanced Materials and Processing

___ Biotechnology Research

___ Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Education

Name ___________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

Phone _____-_____-____________

Return this form to:

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology

Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone: (202) 395-5101 FAX: (202) 395-5076 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology

(FCCSET)

REPORT REQUEST FORM

I WOULD LIKE TO RECEIVE COPIES OF THE FULL REPORTS ON THE FOLLOWING FY 1994 BUDGET INITIATIVES WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE (APPROXIMATELY JUNE 30, 1993):

___ Advanced Manufacturing Technology

___ High Performance Computing and Communications

___ Global Change Research

___ Advanced Materials and Processing

___ Biotechnology Research

___ Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology

Education

Name ___________________________________________

Address ___________________________________________

Phone _____-_____-____________

Return this form to:

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology

Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy Washington, D.C. 20500
Phone: (202) 395-5101 FAX: (202) 395-5076