Spring 2024 Advisory Committee Meeting for The Directorate for Biological Sciences

Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee (AC) for the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) provides advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities of the divisions that make up BIO.

AGENDA: 

Agenda items will include: a Directorate business update; report on BIO’s response to the Committee of Visitors Report for the Division of Environmental Biology; report from the Working Group for the Long Term Environmental Research Program on future program priorities; overview of the report, ‘Vision, Needs, and Proposed Actions for the Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative’, overview of BIO support for data resources and synthesis centers, panel discussion on the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and biological research followed by AC discussion of opportunities and bottlenecks for advancing this intersection, a review of BIO funding metrics relevant to BIO’s shift to no-deadlines for core programs, a review of BIO investments and outreach in EPSCoR states relevant to the CHIPs and Science Act mandates for increased NSF funding for institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions, an overview from the Committee for Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering on their 2023 Report on Rural STEM, and other directorate matters.

Spring 2024 BIO AC Meeting Day 1

https://youtube.com/live/I3Nt8IIOi3s?feature=share

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Spring 2024 BIO AC Meeting Day 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OevdC4aPmks

Breakout Sessions at 10:40 AM -

Group 1: Stay in the main YouTube Channel

Group 2: https://www.youtube.com/live/aIZ4MzhBJLg?si=H7Ck5_VXTqDBLkEf
 

Group 3: https://www.youtube.com/live/1VQ-eZwpqNA?si=F247jNIq3-pVji1F

Meeting minutes

BIO AC Members in Attendance:

• Dr. Michael Ibba (Chair)
• Dr. Barbara Beltz
• Dr. Henry (Hank) Bart, Jr.
• Dr. Thomas Daniel
• Dr. Erich Grotewold
• Dr. Matthew Hahn
• Dr. Wallace Marshall
• Dr. C. Robertson McClung
• Dr. Gail McLean
• Dr. Pamela Soltis
• Dr. Paul Turner
• Dr. Maria Uriarte
• Dr. Kennedy S. Wekesa

Wednesday, May 8, 2024 - Day 1 

Recording available on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3Nt8IIOi3s 

Welcome and Introductions

Dr. Susan Marqusee, Assistant Director (AD) for Biological Sciences (BIO), called the meeting to order at 9:30 AM ET.

Ms. Lynette Bouchie, Staff Associate in BIO, Office of Assistant Director (OAD), reminded attendants of the FACA rules and NSF public meeting policies.

Dr. Michael Ibba, AC Chair, provided hybrid meeting instructions and opened the meeting up for introductions.

Dr. Ibba called for approval of the Fall 2023 BIO AC meeting minutes. No comments or corrections noted. The AC unanimously approved the meeting minutes without changes, and they will be made available on the BIO AC website.

BIO Directorate Update

Dr. Marqusee provided an update on recent activities in the BIO Directorate.

• There have been leadership changes in the Divisions and the BIO OAD, including the appointment of Dr. Charlie Cunningham as the Deputy Division Director in the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB), and the appointment of Dr. Leslie Rissler as the Acting Deputy Division Director of the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB).
• The FY 2024 budget was passed by Congress in March. NSF's budget was cut by roughly 5% from FY 2023 base appropriations, but the operating plan for FY 2024 is awaiting approval from OMB and Congress, with cuts to be felt in all NSF Directorates. NSF has submitted its FY 2025 budget request, which Congress will need to approve, likely not before the November election.
• To set the stage for the AC’s discussions in this meeting, Dr. Marqusee highlighted three throughlines for the meeting, all related to recent Executive Orders (EOs) and legislation. These included: 1) Biological Data Needs and Resources, which follows from discussions at previous meetings prompted by the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy (Bioeconomy EO); 2) the intersection of artificial intelligence and biological sciences, which relates to the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI; AI EO); and 3) BIO’s investments in and outreach to EPSCoR states, which relates to the Chips and Science Act requirement for NSF to increase funding for institutions in EPSCoR jurisdictions. For each of these topics, Dr. Marqusee shared brief descriptions of recent noteworthy BIO-funded research activities.

AC member responses included questions and discussion on: whether there are any updates on the National Science Board’s conversations about salaries for post-docs (especially considering that graduate programs could be complemented by bringing in more computer sciences and AI, but this is complicated by the fact that salaries for post-docs in that realm are much different than those in the life sciences); whether NSF could play a role in driving curriculum for undergraduates to require statistics as part of the major; discussion of what seems to be a growing trend of students participating in post baccalaureate preparatory years to gain more research experience prior to graduate school, and whether or how BIO programs might support such efforts at all institution types; and whether there is an opportunity to consider partnerships with industry for training of individuals in data sciences.

Overview of Discussion on Bioeconomy, spurred by the Bioeconomy EO

Dr. Theresa Good [Division Director, BIO/Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB)] provided background by giving an overview of the Bioeconomy EO and one of the resulting reports, "Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing: Harnessing Research and Development to Further Societal Goals”. She highlighted some specific key R&D areas from NSF's section of the report and how BIO activities feed into this vision for the bioeconomy, from individual investigator awards to data infrastructure, observatories, and centers.

Dr. Brent Miller (Science Advisor, BIO Office of the Assistant Director) followed on this theme by providing an update on the NSF-led activity, “Catalyzing Across Sectors to Advance the Bioeconomy” (CASA-Bio), which is bringing together federal, industry, and non-profit funders and their respective research communities to define priority research areas to advance the bioeconomy. Dr. Miller described the process thus far and the next steps, which will include holding a series of Advancement Workshops in late summer to early fall aimed at engaging the research communities to produce white papers or roadmaps describing priority R&D opportunities for the bioeconomy.

Responses from the AC:

• What are the end goals for CASA-Bio? A: This is a science planning activity involving coordination across agencies with workshop outcomes to be provided to the OSTP-led National Bioeconomy Board.
• Have there been discussions about "Good Manufacturing Practices"? A: The Bioeconomy EO called for a report on biomanufacturing strategy and policy recommendations on several fronts, including “improving biomanufacturing processes;” that report is almost ready for release.
• How did R&D community feedback during CASA-Bio Town Halls overlap with reports used during CASA-Bio planning stages. A: The feedback was robust and had good overlap with the sections covered in the reports.

Dr. Sylvia Spengler [Program Director, Directorate for Computer and information Sciences and Engineering (CISE)] and Co-Chair of Interagency Working Group on Data for the Bioeconomy, provided an overview of the "Vision, Needs, and Proposed Actions for Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative" report that was published in December 2023 to satisfy, in part, the Bioeconomy EO call for establishment of a Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative. The report was informed by input from 14 federal agencies and working groups, the public, and an RFI with 1,200 responses. Dr. Spengler described recommendations for future coordination of Intergovernmental investments, efforts, and resources with support from the National Bioeconomy Board and the need to organize external experts to inform and advise, including expertise across the breadth of the data lifecycle.

Responses from the AC:

• In addition to agencies, have other organizations like industry been at the table? Where are the funds for long-term sustainability? A: Yes, they have been included in the conversations, and for NAIRR (National AI Research Resource Pilot) there has been industry engagement.
• When you talk about companies, how much of the focus is on data creation/acquisition, v. data synthesis/analytics. A: That's part of the ongoing discussions.
• What are the short-term activities that could be expected? A: NAIRR might give you the template for doing that – both with multiple agencies and multiple industry partners.

Dr. James Deshler [Acting Division Director, Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI)] provided an overview of BIO Support for Data Resources and Synthesis Centers and how that investment fundamental biological research. DBI’s Research Resources Cluster has three focus areas: Innovation, which includes bioinformatics; Capacity, which includes cyberinfrastructure, collections and data, and broadening community use; and Sustaining, for longer-term support data resources. Dr. Deshler highlighted additional funding mechanisms and examples of BIO investments in data and infrastructure including the Network for Advanced NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance; NAN), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and long-term support for databases like Protein Data Bank (PDB), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and Protein ANalysis THrough Evolutionary Relationships (PANTHER) Classification System. Dr. Deshler concluded by outlining BIO’s historical support for Synthesis Centers and the current competition for a Synthesis Center for Understanding Organismal Resilience. He introduced Program Directors who spoke on two of the most recent synthesis centers in BIO.

Dr. Matt Kane (Program Director, Division of Environmental [DEB]) shared information about the Environmental Data Science Innovation and Inclusion Lab (ESIIL; https://esiil.org/), a BIO-funded synthesis center begun in August 2022 and led by the University of Colorado Boulder in collaboration with CyVerse at the University of Arizona. ESIIL enables a global community of environmental scientists to leverage the wealth of environmental data and emerging analytics to develop science-based solutions to solve pressing societal problems. Dr. Kane spoke to the broad interest in ESIIL and environmental data from industry, government agencies, international researchers, and a strong partnership with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.

Dr. Manju Hingorani (Program Director, MCB) provided an overview of the brand-new National Center for Emergence in Molecular and Cellular Sciences (NCEMS; https://ncems.psu.edu/). This BIO-funded synthesis center, led by Pennsylvania State University in collaboration with CyVerse, will focus on bringing together multidisciplinary teams to synthesize publicly available data to answer fundamental questions in molecular and cellular biology and train the next-generation workforce in data science.

Responses from the AC:

• Regarding the NCEMS, are there plans to expand NCEMS partnership to other HBCUs, or community colleges? A: Dr. Hingorani commented that right now, there are several partnerships in place and, as this is a brand-new center, there will likely be opportunities to expand the reach moving forward – specifically with remote learning experiences.
• Regarding the Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative report and associated data challenges, several additional questions and comments arose, including: challenges of accessing data that should be publicly available – whether from academia, industry, or government agencies; challenges of storing very large image files; access to older datasets or those stored in non-machine-readable format; quality of data that are available; and sustaining long-term storage of data. A: Dr. Spengler commented that determining the cost versus benefit for enhancing, and making available, older data is a challenge, as there are data samples that are specific in time that could be lost forever, while there are other types of older data (e.g., DNA sequences) that may be less of a priority to capture. There is still need for a process to determine how and what to prioritize, especially with image generation in biology; this is something that astronomy and physics have already had to deal with, but the biological community still needs a process. Dr. Spengler agreed with the comment that sustaining long-term storage of data is a challenge.

Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) Decadal Review follow-up

Dr. Betsy Von Holle [Program Director in DEB and Chair of the Long-tern Ecological Research (LTER) program] and Dr. Paco Moore [Program Director in DEB and Member of the LTER Working Group (WG)] provided an overview of the program, which supports 27 sites, each chosen to represent a major ecosystem type or natural biome with research focused on ecological phenomena over long periods of time. At a previous meeting, the AC heard from the decadal review committee, which it had charged to look at the significance of the science over the last decade with a goal of identifying strengths and weaknesses of the LTER network model. The report, which was released in 2022 (https://lternet.edu/documents/decadal-review-report-2022/), identified significant strengths and made many recommendations for improving the program.

The LTER WG chose two recommendations as priorities. First, in the area of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ), the WG instituted quarterly progress meetings with the LTER Network Office's DEIJ committee; the Network Office hired an LTER Network Inclusion and Access Coordinator; new requirements—for broadening participation and for a Safe and Inclusive Fieldwork plan--were added to the site renewal solicitation; processes were instituted for increased accountability on DEIJ issues though annual reporting and mid-term site reviews; and a call for supplements to LTER sites was issued to catalyze broadening participation efforts. Second, in the area of synthesis research, the LTER Network Office was provided with additional resources to support cross-site synthesis activities, and a new Dear Colleague Letter (ULTRA-Data DCL) was issued to foster the reuse of data from NSF's investments in long-term and time series data.

Responses from the AC:

• A comment was made about the challenges of increasing requirements on awardees without concomitant increases in funding – specifically with regards to broadening participation. A: That is something that the working group has discussed a lot. Have tried to focus some of the investment in this area at the Network office and to give the sites more flexibility during the renewal process to invest in broadening participation in the way that best suits the individual site.
• How do you deal with changing leadership over time? A: It's laid out in the management plan for each site and included as part of both the mid-term reviews and renewals of the sites.
• Do LTERs collaborate much with other initiatives? e.g., the BIIs. A: We don't have anything specific, but LTER is more about the individual site – so each site may work with others. The new Dear Colleague Letter is trying to encourage more integration and synthesis of these many data streams.
• Are there any new sites on the horizon? A: Right now, 27 seems to be a good number of sites for capacity.
• Are there any interactions between NEON and LTER, or any movement to coordinate? A: There are

some co-located sites (where both LTER and NEON coexist), but the programs represent different models, wherein LTER is a research program that is driven by investigator questions, whereas NEON is specifically infrastructure-oriented.

Response to DEB Committee of Visitors (COV) Report

Dr. Allen Moore (Division Director, DEB) thanked Dr. Hank Bart (BIO AC liaison to the COV) and Dr. Anne Yoder (Chair of the COV for DEB) for their work on the COV. The COV reviewed the years FY 2019 through FY 2022, which included a transition to no-deadline for core program submissions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the post pandemic period. As a whole, the COV review was positive, but a few needs were identified, including: examining how no-deadlines and the pandemic have affected programs, the review process, and reviewer and research communities. BIO agrees with these recommendations, especially the importance of data-driven decision making. The COV also identified communication as a priority area; BIO agrees that effective communication is a perennial challenge and will seek ways to evaluate effectiveness of current mechanisms, while also investigating new ways for communication both internally and externally to many audiences. Link to COV Report and Responses on the website.

BIO Funding Metrics

Dr. Ibba introduced this session by citing the work of a previous BIO AC subcommittee—chaired by Dr. Barbara Beltz—which developed guidelines and metrics to be used by BIO to evaluate outcomes of the 2018 move to no-deadlines for submissions to the core programs.

Ms. Rachel Shackelford [Biologist, Division of Integrative and Organismal Systems (IOS)] provided an update for the six-year period, FY 2018 - FY 2023. Impacts were assessed in four categories: proposal submission statistics, principal investigator demographics, institution demographics, and merit review outcomes. The data in each area was consistent across all six years with no notable negative impacts observed following the elimination of deadlines in the core program. One new development was noted, e.g., in assessing PI demographics, there are fewer ‘unknowns’ than in previous years, likely due to the implementation of NSF's single PI ID, which requires PIs to opt out of (as opposed to opt in to) providing demographic information.

Responses from the AC:

• Some additional data might be useful, e.g., the number of PIs being funded for the first time and the demographics of collaborative teams. A: Ms. Shackelford and Dr. Miller responded that these data are not easy to acquire from NSF’s current systems.
• Has the time to decision changed with the shift to no-deadlines? A: This metric was monitored, but it has not changed substantially since the shift to no-deadlines.
• How might it be possible to capture the diversity of investigators and institutions that could possibly be supported by BIO? A: Dr. Marqusee noted that the pool of potential applicants is much larger and more diverse than in some other Directorates at NSF.
• How has the number of submissions changed in other programs that adopted no-deadlines? A: Dr.Simon Malcomber (Assistant Director, Directorate for Biological Sciences) noted that a decrease in submissions is something that all parts of NSF who have moved to no deadlines have seen, although BIO seems to be rebounding more quickly than some.

Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) – BIO Funding and Outreach

Dr. Michelle Elekonich (Deputy Division Director, IOS) provided an overview of new targets for EPSCoR state funding from the Chips and Science Act through FY2029, and the relevance to NSF's Strategic plan.

Ms. Shackelford shared data from the EPSCoR 'NSF by the Numbers' external dashboard located on the NSF website: https://new.nsf.gov/about/about-nsf-by-the-numbers.

Dr. Elekonich continued with a description of some of BIO's outreach strategies with EPSCoR states and handed off the presentation Program Directors in BIO to describe two specific activities.

Ishita Mukerji (Program Director, MCB) presented an overview of an MCB-specific outreach conference to the EPSCoR states of AR, KS, LA, MS, and OK in November, 2023. Dr. Mukerji noted that the NSF goals were to increase submissions and subsequent awards from these states, while the goals for the participants were to meet MCB Program Directors, network with other principal investigators to enhance regional research infrastructure, learn about NSF and MCB funding programs, and (for those PIs who seek funding from multiple funding agencies) discuss how to frame questions specific to NSF. The conference was held at Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas, which is a predominantly undergraduate institution, and attendees were identified and invited based on relation to MCB-type science within the five-state area and across diverse institution types. Response from participants was positive, and MCB is planning another conference to take place this summer for EPSCoR states in the northeastern and mid-Atlantic regions.

Anna Allen (Program Director, IOS]) and Charlotte Roehm (Program Director, DBI) presented an overview of the HBCU EPSCoR Regional Outreach (HERO) Workshop, conducted as a 2024 pilot program. Participants included faculty, administrators, and sponsored research offices at HBCUs in AL, LA, and MS and NSF program and administrative staff from 8 Directorates and 2 offices. Goals of the workshop were to expose institutional participants to NSF, increase the pool of reviewers, increase proposal submissions and awards from HBCUs, offer avenues to learn about NSF funding opportunities, and establish sustainable relationships to build trust. There was both an in-person event and a separate virtual event, and each included sessions tailored to specific audiences, e.g., researchers, administrators, or sponsored research officers. Assessment included pre- and post-surveys for participants.

Responses from the AC:

• Were there specific funding opportunities for people to apply to? Are there any opportunities that allow for the release of time to write proposals? A: A lot of funding opportunities were presented as possibilities across the agency, and the HBCU: Excellence in Research (EIR; NSF 23-593) program does now have a track for planning grants that can include support for a release from teaching to write.
• Are there any discussions of what can be done to assist institutions with administrative support, considering the amount of such support needed for submitting proposals or managing awards? A: The Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity (GRANTED) initiative, in the Office of Integrative Activities is actively addressing this.
• How do you discern outcomes, and do you intend to continue doing this? A: As a continuation of the cross-directorate outreach pilot, GEO is going to be targeting Tribal Colleges in the Northwestern U.S. EPSCoR states.

Preparation for Visit with the Office of the Director (OD) Leadership

Dr. Ibba led the discussion to develop talking points for the meeting with OD leadership. Topics were based on the day’s discussions, and roles as discussion leads were assigned.

Dr. Marqusee adjourned the meeting at approximately 5:30 PM ET.

Thursday, May 9, 2024 - DAY 2 

Recordings Available on YouTube: 

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ve0DsdeUmk 
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OevdC4aPmks&t=4s 
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OevdC4aPmks&t=1530s 
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIZ4MzhBJLg 

Welcome

Dr. Ibba opened the meeting at approximately 9:30 AM.

Intersections of AI and Biological Sciences Research Panel Discussion

Dr. Ibba introduced Dr. Sridar Raghavachari (Program Director, DBI) to moderate the panel discussion. Dr. Raghavachari is BIO’s representative to the NSF Working Group for National AI Institutes and manages the AI Institute for Artificial and Natural Intelligence.

Dr. Raghavachari introduced the panelists.

• Dr. Michael Littman: Division Director for the Division of Intelligent Information Systems (IIS) in the Directorate for Computer Information Science and Engineering (CISE), and co-chair of the NSF-wide AI Steering Committee. Dr. Littman is also a professor of Computer Science at Brown University where he co-directs Brown’s Humanity-Centered Robotics Initiative and leads a research program on reinforcement learning, machine learning, game theory, computer networking, and other areas.
• Dr. Katie Antypas: Head of the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC) in the NSF CISE directorate and lead for NSF’s effort in the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) Pilot, and Division Deputy at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. At NERSC, she has been instrumental in developing and deploying advanced and largescale computing and data resources for broad research communities applying AI to scientific research.
• Dr. Rommie Amaro: Professor and Endowed Chair of Theoretical and Computational Chemistry in the Department of Molecular Biology at the University of California-San Diego. Her research centers on developing and applying state-of-the-art computational tools and theoretical methods to investigate structure, function, and dynamics of complex biological systems. She is also a member of the Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure (ACCI), and was a co-author of the ACCI report called, “Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning.”

Short presentations were given by each of the panel members.

• Dr. Littman gave a broad introduction of AI and machine learning, including the evolution of the technologies over time and expansion of neural networks and deep learning. He shared the NSF roles in activities to implement the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence from October 2023.
• Dr. Antypas discussed the resources needed to broaden access to AI resources, specifically through the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) Pilot. She shared the history for development of NAIRR, and the vision for the NAIRR Pilot, which is to be a national resource to connect to necessary computing, data, educational materials, training, and user support to spur innovation, increase diversity of talent in AI, improve U.S. capacity for AI research and development, and advance trustworthy AI. The NAIRR pilot provides infrastructure and resources for AI researchers, domain scientists, students, and educators, but it does not fund end-user research. There are 13 agency partners and 26 non-government partners. The NAIRR pilot allows users to request access to computing resources, datasets, models, software, platforms, and user training. (NAIRR Pilot Portal: https://nairrpilot.org)
• Dr. Amaro introduced the report titled "Opportunities in AI and Machine Learning" authored in 2021 by the Cyberinfrastructure Research and Innovation Working Group of the NSF Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure (ACCI). She spoke to the importance of working across boundaries, especially between those who advance computing technology and those who use that technology to advance science and engineering. She also discussed the challenges of many types of biological data and the need for better biological data production pipelines. She stressed the need for closer partnerships between domain scientists and data science researchers, as the machine learning and AI landscapes are changing very fast.

Responses from the AC:

• Not all biological data are big data; how do you deal with the scope of biological data in determining how and if they are amenable to machine learning and AI? A: There is a need for more partnerships with computer scientists across the range of biological sciences discussing those challenges, including differences in data generated from a range of instruments and across many disciplines.
• Are there lessons in life sciences that can inform computer science, e.g., make it more efficient, less energy consuming? A: One emerging area is use of DNA as a computing substrate; it offers many advantages, especially if one considers how biological insights like neuroscience have informed development of neural networks for AI.
• What is the right mode for getting AI tools into the hands of biologists and for them to be reskilled? There seems to be a challenge for biologists to gain experience with AI even at the undergrad level, because there is little access to classes if students are not computer science majors. A: Agreed. We may need to look at the biology curriculum in more creative ways.
• What solutions do you see for challenges with quality and format of data? What is right for AI? A: This is not easy. We need to get together and have conversations in different domains about how to start the process and recognize that it will evolve over time.

AC member Breakout Groups – Opportunities and Bottlenecks for Advancing the intersections of AI and BIO

BIO AC members discussed priority research areas that could advance the intersections of AI and BIO and then reported out on their discussions.

• Group 1: One challenge discussed was the difficulty associated with studying spatial and temporal problems in biological systems. Often approached with time-lapse microscopy and imaging, these studies generate very large datasets for which AI may be a useful analysis tool. NSF could consider offering an opportunity for pilot projects to make progress in this area. Another challenge that might be amenable to AI could be finding a solution to the long-standing question of understanding how many species exist on the planet; for example, AI might help inform where to look for new species. Other opportunities for NSF support could include RCNs (Research Coordination Networks), and support for workshops to bring together researchers interested in how AI can be used to help solve biological questions. There may also be an opportunity for workforce development, especially as an industry-academic partnership as more and more students and academics move into industry.
• Group 2: A challenge discussed in this group was the nature of biological data, which are often sparse or limited and noisy. Applying AI to analysis of such data could boost the ability to address cross-scale questions in biology, especially across temporal and spatial dimensions. In discussing which areas of biology may be ready for leveraging AI methods, the group concluded that all of biology is ready in some respect although certain data (sparse, noisy) will be more challenging than others. To support efforts at the interface of AI and biology, NSF could consider: inviting PIs to include training in AI and machine learning into the broader impacts plans of their proposals; offering guidance on data management plans to ensure that data are managed in a way that would be amenable for AI analysis; and helping to get the word out about the NAIRR and other compute resources available to the community.
• Group 3: In discussing which areas of biology may be ready for AI, this group raised the idea of going back to old texts and developing mining tools that might be useful for capturing data formats suited to each unique field. Another idea was using AI to develop better instruction tools and ways of assessing instruction. Roles for NSF might be at the post-doctoral level with fellowships for study at the AI x Bio intersection, or mechanisms for advanced graduate student support in these areas as a transition into postdocs; this was seen as a way to increase retention in academia. Another suggestion was to allow for renewal of NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) projects, as the current 5-year timeframe is not long enough for meaningful, sustained progress, especially in an emerging field like AI x Bio.

Update from Committee on Equal Opportunities for Science and Engineering (CEOSE)

Dr. Suzanne Barbour [Professor at Duke University, and Chair of the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE)] described a recent CEOSE report on rural STEM education titled "Making Visible the Invisible: STEM Talent of Rural America". This report originated with the Chips and Science Act (2022), in which NSF was charged with generating a report to describe past and present policies of the foundation in relationship to engagement of students in rural stem communities with a focus on K-12 students. NSF was also asked to do an assessment of the policies and activities of the foundation along with providing proposals for new strategies to further and more effectively engage the rural stem population with the goal of seeing more folks from rural America involved in STEM and in STEM careers. Research highlighted in the report shows that while rural student test scores are very similar to their non-rural counterparts, rural students are less likely to attend college, and those who do are 60% less likely to enroll in STEM majors and less likely to stay in STEM fields than their urban and suburban peers. Analyses of NSF investment in rural STEM education show that there has been a longstanding and continuing commitment to rural stem education as evidenced by the past and present programs. Some trends seen recently in NSF support for rural K-12 projects include: the creation of partnerships, research on remote STEM education, cutting-edge opportunities for students to do hands-on science, and career development opportunities in STEM. Dr. Barbour called out two specific examples of engaging rural students, e.g., through the LTER Schoolyard series, and the use of NEON data in classrooms. In summary, the resulting recommendations from the report were framed around a need for widespread STEM literacy, access to high quality STEM learning and training for students and teachers, early engagement with the research community, and increased inclusion in the STEM workforce.

Responses from the AC:

• Do we know what rural students are majoring in college, when they are not majoring in STEM? A: We don't know that answer, but their choices might be influenced by the fact that they haven't had the same sort of access to high quality laboratories or role models with STEM careers.
• Are rural students more likely to attend institutions closer to their communities, and do those institution offer robust STEM major opportunities? A: We don't have an answer for that question, but I note that community colleges are often a bridge to 4-year institutions for rural students and students of color and could be an important part of the engagement of rural and underrepresented students in STEM education.

Final Prep for OAD Leadership Visit: 

Dr. Ibba led discussion to finalize topics to bring to the OD leadership.

Meeting with OD Leadership:

The AC met with Dr. Karen Marrongelle (Chief Operating Officer) and Dr. Brian Stone (Chief of Staff). Multiple areas of discussion were led by AC members.

• Dr. Ibba provided a brief recap of the meeting thus far, commenting on the recent reduction in NSF’s budget. He noted the importance of continued NSF support for investigator-driven research and voiced a concern that the need to meet existing large commitments might take a disproportionate toll on individual and small collaborative awards. Dr. Ibba then yielded the floor to a series of other AC members.
• Dr. Bart was very positive about BIO’s outreach efforts to EPSCoR jurisdictions and HBCU institutions. He highlighted the need for planning grants that can support proposers with release time from teaching to prepare proposals, and he praised efforts like the GRANTED program to support institutions in developing their sponsored projects administration for proposal submissions and post award management. Dr. Bart also highlighted the CEOSE report out from Dr. Barbour as an important contribution towards recognizing the distinct needs for STEM in rural parts of the country.
• Dr. McClung provided an overview of the AC’s discussions about postbaccalaureate research, highlighting such opportunities as important for developing a STEM workforce for the bioeconomy. The AC noted that the extent of prior research experience seemed to be a good predictor of future graduate student success and raised a cautionary note that increasing costs of supporting graduate students may lead to more competition, which could disproportionately impact students from lessresourced institutions. Opportunities for professional development, or a post-baccalaureate, year of training could be a way to support students and keep them in the STEM field. Dr. Marrongelle agreed that BIO’s inclusion of post-baccalaureate education in its portfolio provides good food for thought in considering how to connect research experiences for undergraduates to next professional steps, especially in biology where there is a large post-baccalaureate community. She encouraged BIO and the AC to continue line of thought and to bring recommendations to NSF on how to strengthen and grow this idea.
• Dr. Marshall provided an overview of some of the areas of BIO where AI holds enormous promise for data analysis. He emphasized the need for innovative ways of training students and faculty in the use of the approaches and for new ways to catalyze collaborations between computer science and biology in a meaningful way for both communities. Moreover, he noted that this is a conversation that could only happen at NSF, as there is no other funding agency that has both computer science and biology under its purview. The AC recommends that this be considered a very high priority area. Dr. Marrongelle agreed that this could only happen at NSF and encouraged this effort for coordination and collaboration. She commented that historically biologists have been innovative in collaborating with other disciplines, including with mathematics.
• Dr. Hahn discussed how best to introduce AI to the future stem workforce and to current PIs. The AC viewed the NAIRR Pilot and other cyberinfrastructure projects as valuable resources that need to continue to be promoted to the biology community. The AC also discussed some ideas whereby existing NSF mechanisms could prove useful for increasing access to training in AI, including: using the broader impacts or mentoring plans already in place at NSF to encourage training in AI, offering AI as a focus area for postdoctoral fellowships, and encouraging data management plans to address how data might be standardized for use in AI analysis. The AC also discussed the role synthesis centers may plan in these efforts for data standardization. Dr. Marrongelle responded by noting that with NEON, the BIO community is already leading the way in efforts for standardizing data collection. She agreed with the importance of training for current and future PIs and encouraged the community to think about how to enable appropriate data standardization.
• Dr. Soltis provided additional perspectives on education and training in AI by considering how AI might be employed for education. For example, instead of teaching students to code, we could teach students to use AI tools to teach them how to code. In this context, the instruction would then focus more on learning how to ask good questions and how to evaluate whether you are asking the right questions; in other words, learning not just how to code but how to frame the problem in conjunction with AI tools. Dr. Marrongelle agreed and noted that AI does provide an opportunity for us to be rethinking our curriculum to streamline areas that could be offloaded or reemphasized to make room for more exciting topics and tools. She encouraged continued discussion in this area.

Discussion of Topics for Fall 2024 Meeting

Dr. Ibba led the discussion of items that might be considered in upcoming meetings. Topics of interest included: the impact of salary escalation for graduate students and postdocs, how that will affect staffing in labs, and to what extent funding agencies can help; discussion of the Science of Team Science, especially in the context of synthesis centers and other large projects like the Biology Integration Institutes and the current RCN around that topic; and the potential to consider discussion of K-Gray in context of fostering opportunities everywhere.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Marqusee thanked Dr. Paul Turner for his service on the BIO AC; this was his last meeting before the end of his term. Dr. Marqusee also thanked the BIO staff and NSF participants at the meeting and the entire BIO AC members for their participation.

Dr. Ibba adjourned the meeting at 3:35 PM EDT.