Libraries as Infrastructure Albert Henderson 06 Jan 2003 17:50 UTC
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