Following is my comment to the National Science Board on its draft report
on the infrastructure of science and engineering in the 21st Century.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

=====================
To: National Science Board, 420 Wilson Blvd, Arlington VA 22230-0002
nsb-inf@nsf.gov

From: Albert Henderson, Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
1994-2000,  70244.1532@compuserve.com; PO Box 2423, Bridgeport CT 06608.
203-301-0791

Comment on "Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century,
the Role
of the National Science Foundation." (the Report)

The law establishing the National Science Foundation intended "to foster
the
interchange of scientific and engineering information among scientists and
engineers in the United States and foreign countries." I do not believe
that the
NSF addresses this goal in the Report as drafted.

For example, the Report asserts: "A number of themes emerged from the
diverse
input received. Foremost among them was that, over the past decade, the
funding
for academic research infrastructure has not kept pace with rapidly
changing
technology, expanding research opportunities, and increasing numbers of
users."
This theme applies particularly well to major university libraries. Many
observers
have documented the failure of academic libraries to keep pace with the
growth
of R&D since 1970. Undoubtedly Vannevar Bush had these libraries in mind
when
he wrote that universities "are charged with the responsibility of
conserving the
knowledge accumulated by the past." (Science The Endless Frontier) These
libraries are the main importers of foreign authorship. They link
scientists of the
past, present, and future.

Unfortunately, the Report fails to include such libraries in its review.
The Report
overlooks data recording the increased reliance on libraries by scientists
and
engineers. The Report seems unaware of library collection failure indicated
by
skyrocketing interlibrary photocopying. The Report makes no reference to
libraries as research overhead under OMB Circular A-21, a program
considered
by many librarians to be unrelated to the information-seeking needs and
behaviors of government sponsored authors and referees.

This is not the first time that NSF, NSB, and the science policy leadership

overlooked the critical issue of information as the unique input and output
of
research. For example, in 1975, a special subcommittee of the Senate
Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare criticized NSF for its failure to develop a
coherent
policy on science information. In 1989, the Office of Technology Assessment

echoed this criticism. In 1997, Speaker Newt Gingrich also emphasized
failures in
science information as he called for a new vision of science policy. In
spite of this
prolonged condemnation, you continue to fail to address the effectiveness
of
libraries' support of research authorship and peer review.

Why would NSB and NSF deliberately abandon the information assets generated

by billions of dollars invested annually in R&D? Why consciously ignore the
potential
for greater productivity that would come from more effective handling of
information
inputs?

It is time to remedy this shortcoming. Are science libraries not part of
the infrastructure
of science? Of course they are. I urge you to expand the Report to include
science
libraries and the issue of dissemination as the primary infrastructure of
science and
technology.

January 6, 2003