[Asis-l] Information policy: Libraries as Infrastructure

[Albert Henderson]

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 at compuserve.com>

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

From: Albert Henderson, Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH 
QUARTERLY 1994-2000,  70244.1532 at 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