Abstract
This chapter highlights Steve Fienberg’s multifaceted, pro bono contributions to the work of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine over a 40-year time frame. In addition to chairing the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), Steve served on 15 study committees as well as on several oversight bodies under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council—including the Report Review Committee (RRC), which he cochaired for 8 years. Described here are several examples of his impact on public policy issues through his service on CNSTAT committees and the RRC. Not covered here (but nevertheless important) was his role as an enthusiastic mentor to many National Academies staff, including the three authors of this chapter, who have greatly benefited from his wise counsel.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Connie Citro is a senior scholar with the Committee on National Statistics (she directed CNSTAT from 2004–2017); Mike Cohen is a senior program officer with CNSTAT; Porter Coggeshall directed the Report Review Committee from 1992 to 2017.
- 2.
National Research Council. 2003. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10420
- 3.
In addition to serving as RRC monitor and cochair, Steve reviewed a total of 15 National Academies reports. We thank RRC staff member Dalia Hedges, who provided the appended lists of the reports that Steve monitored and reviewed.
- 4.
One important difference is that the review comments on National Academies reports are submitted to the institution, which is represented by the RRC monitor and a review coordinator appointed by the Academies division overseeing the study. They together assess the adequacy of the authoring committee’s responses to all review comments. The reviewers themselves never see these responses. Nor do they see the revisions to the report until it is published.
- 5.
The review of a National Academies report typically takes 10–12 weeks to complete (i.e., from the time the draft is sent to reviewer to the date of RRC signoff).
- 6.
National Academy of Sciences. 2009. Global Security Engagement: A New Model for Cooperative Threat Reduction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12583
- 7.
National Research Council. 2011. Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13098
- 8.
National Research Council. 2013. Monitoring Progress Toward Successful K-12 STEM Education: A Nation Advancing?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13509
- 9.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Families Caring for an Aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23606
- 10.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Mainstreaming Unmanned Undersea Vehicles into Future U.S. Naval Operations: Abbreviated Version of a Restricted Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21862
- 11.
National Research Council, 2014: Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18891/identifying-the-culprit-assessing-eyewitness-identification
- 12.
The use of receiver operating receiver curves to measure the accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions has been widely debated. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256436/.
- 13.
From a case study that was prepared by the RRC staff for discussion at the 2015 RRC annual meeting.
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
National Research Council. 2009. A Guide to the Methodology of the National Research Council Assessment of Doctorate Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12676
- 16.
National Research Council. 2011. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12994
- 17.
National Research Council. 1995. Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
- 18.
Jones, Lyle V., Gardner Lindzey, and Porter E. Coggeshall. 1982. An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (five volumes). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. This 1982 report was undertaken under the auspices of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils in the United States, which included representatives of the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Council on Education, the Social Science Research Council, and the National Research Council. The 1995 report was undertaken by the National Research Council alone.
- 19.
The names of the 20 reviewers may be found in the Preface and Acknowledgments section of the 2009 report.
- 20.
From a case study that was prepared by the RRC staff for discussion at the 2009 RRC annual meeting
- 21.
The complex technique for estimating the interquartile range of program rankings is described in Appendix A of the 2009 report.
- 22.
The 2011 assessment report presents a brief description of the doctoral program data collected and how the rankings were calculated, including a detailed example of this calculation for a program in economics.
- 23.
The assessment data covered doctoral programs in 61 fields at 222 institutions. The names of the institutions and departments were not identified in the spreadsheet to prevent any reviewers, monitor, coordinator, and staff from leaking the assessment results before the report was publicly released.
- 24.
From a case study that was prepared by the RRC staff for discussion at the 2011 RRC annual meeting.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
National Research Council. 2011. Op. cit., p. 1
- 27.
From a case study that was prepared by the RRC staff for discussion at the 2011 RRC annual meeting.
- 28.
The Chronical of Higher Education. September 30, 2010. “A Critic Sees Deep Problems in the Doctoral Rankings”; https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Critic-Sees-Deep-Problems-in/124725
- 29.
Much to the surprise of many RRC members, it was discovered that as many as 5 percent of all National Academies studies involved some form of original data collection, analyses, or modeling.
National Academies Reports Monitored by Steve Fienberg
[in chronological order]
National Research Council. 2005. Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11267
Institute of Medicine. 2006a. Disposition of the Air Force Health Study: Interim Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11483.
Institute of Medicine. 2006b. Disposition of the Air Force Health Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11590.
National Research Council. 2006. Once, Only Once, and in the Right Place: Residence Rules in the Decennial Census. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11727.
National Research Council. 2007. Engaging Privacy and Information Technology in a Digital Age. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11896.
National Research Council. 2009a. Responding to Federal Register Call for Comments: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [link not available]
National Research Council. 2009b. Review of the Methodology Proposed by the Food Safety and Inspection Service for Followup Surveillance of In-Commerce Businesses: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12634.
National Research Council. 2009c. A Guide to the Methodology of the National Research Council Assessment of Doctorate Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12676.
National Academy of Sciences. 2009. Global Security Engagement: A New Model for Cooperative Threat Reduction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12583.
Transportation Research Board. 2009. Review of U.S. Department of Transportation’s Methodology for Assessing De Minimis Impacts of Changes to 4(f) Process. Letter report. [link not available]
National Research Council. 2010. Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12062.
Institute of Medicine. 2010a. Research Priorities for Assessing Health Effects from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13036.
Institute of Medicine. 2010b. Review of the Proposal for the Gulf Long-Term Follow-Up Study: Highlights from the September 2010 Workshop: Workshop Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13025.
National Research Council. 2011a. Learning Science Through Computer Games and Simulations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13078.
National Research Council. 2011b. Review of the Scientific Approaches Used During the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13098.
National Research Council. 2011c. A Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States (with CD). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12994.
National Research Council. 2011d. Successful K-12 STEM Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13158.
National Research Council. 2011e. Research-Doctorate Programs in the Biomedical Sciences: Selected Findings from the NRC Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13213.
National Research Council. 2011f. Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters: The Perspective from the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13178.
Institute of Medicine. 2012a. Monitoring HIV Care in the United States: A Strategy for Generating National Estimates of HIV Care and Coverage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13408.
Institute of Medicine. 2012b. Monitoring HIV Care in the United States: Indicators and Data Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13225.
Institute of Medicine. 2012c. Ranking Vaccines: A Prioritization Framework: Phase I: Demonstration of Concept and a Software Blueprint. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13382.
National Research Council. 2012. Research Universities and the Future of America: Ten Breakthrough Actions Vital to Our Nation’s Prosperity and Security: Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13299.
Institute of Medicine. 2013. Ranking Vaccines: A Prioritization Software Tool: Phase II: Prototype of a Decision-Support System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13531.
National Research Council. 2013a. Measuring What We Spend: Toward a New Consumer Expenditure Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13520.
National Research Council. 2013b. Best Practices in State and Regional Innovation Initiatives: Competing in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18364.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2014a. Research Priorities to Inform Public Health and Medical Practice for Ebola Virus Disease: Workshop in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19004.
Institute of Medicine. 2014a. Health Standards for Long Duration and Exploration Spaceflight: Ethics Principles, Responsibilities, and Decision Framework. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18576.
Institute of Medicine. 2014b. Discussion Framework for Clinical Trial Data Sharing: Guiding Principles, Elements, and Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18610.
National Research Council. 2014a. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891.
National Research Council. 2014b. Science and Technology Capabilities of the Department of State: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18761.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2015. Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21666.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016a. Assessing Health Outcomes Among Veterans of Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21846.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016b. Mainstreaming Unmanned Undersea Vehicles into Future U.S. Naval Operations: Abbreviated Version of a Restricted Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21862.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016c. Families Caring for an Aging America. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23606.
National Academies Reports Reviewed by Steve Fienberg
[in chronological order]
National Research Council. 1994. Letter to Congressman Sawyer on Confidentiality of Health Care Data Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. [link not available].
National Research Council. 1997a. Letter Report Addressed to Dr. Martha Farnsworth Riche, Director, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9253.
National Research Council. 1997b. Preparing For the 2000 Census: Interim Report II. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/5886.
National Research Council. 1999. Measuring a Changing Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/6500.
National Research Council. 2000a. Letter Report to the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9880.
National Research Council. 2000b. Panel on the 2000 Census: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9996.
National Research Council. 2001a. Letter Report from the Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10234.
National Research Council. 2001b. The 2000 Census: Interim Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10210.
National Research Council. 2003. Planning the 2010 Census: Second Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10776.
National Research Council. 2008. Ballistic Imaging. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12162.
National Research Council. 2009d. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12589.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Long-Term Stewardship of Safety Data from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Letter Report: October 14, 2013. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22484.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 2014b. The National Children’s Study 2014: An Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18826.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Support for Forensic Science Research: Improving the Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21772.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016d. Modernizing Crime Statistics: Report 1: Defining and Classifying Crime. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23492.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Citro, C.F., Cohen, M.L., Coggeshall, P.E. (2022). Fostering Statistical Rigor forEvidence-Based Policy at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. In: Carriquiry, A.L., Tanur, J.M., Eddy, W.F. (eds) Statistics in the Public Interest. Springer Series in the Data Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75460-0_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75460-0_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75459-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75460-0
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)