|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
2
Development of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan
The committee would like to acknowledge and congratulate the individuals involved in the
development of the draft ORPP, which represents the first coordinated national research planning effort
involving all federal agencies that support ocean science. The committee cannot overstate the importance
and need for these types of activities that open up lines of dialogue between and across government
agencies, academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and industry. With respect to the current
plan, the committee's comments are meant to be constructive for the refinement of the plan and also to
help guide future priority-setting efforts in ocean science.
Representatives of 25 agencies that populate the JSOST conceptualized and coordinated the
development of the plan. Each section within the plan was delegated to subgroups of that committee and
the output of each subgroup was integrated into the draft plan. Prior to its release, the draft plan was
approved by all members of the JSOST and the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science and Resource
Management Integration (ICOSRMI). During the development phase of the plan, the JSOST sought input
from academic, industry, government, and NGO constituencies in two ways: via a public workshop and
through formal public comment. The workshop, convened in Denver, CO, was structured initially to get
comments on the draft ORPP. Shortly before the workshop, however, the goal of the workshop was
changed from commenting on the ORPP to actually providing suggestions for setting the priorities.
Information about the Denver workshop was widely distributed throughout the ocean science
community, including postings on the JSOST website; e-mail notification to members of relevant federal
committees, advisory groups, and professional societies and organizations; postings to discussion lists;
and print and electronic advertising in the journal Science, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and EOS.
However, the workshop was convened with a relatively short lead-time; notification of the workshop
began on February 26, less than two months before the workshop was to convene on April 18. This may
have contributed to the relatively low attendance (231 people, not including the NRC committee members
and staff), which was below the expected number of over 500.
Representation of the various sectors at the workshop was uneven and tended to be skewed
toward federal employees (Figure 2-1). For this analysis, participants were placed in one of four
categories based on affiliation listed on registration: U.S. government agency; academic or other non-
governmental research institution; non-governmental organization; and industry. The committee
acknowledges that many of the participants could fall under more than one category and has attempted to
categorize participants in a consistent manner. NRC committee members and staff and meeting staff were
not included in this analysis. Breakout session moderators met for an afternoon of training prior to the
workshop. Despite this training, the session leaders had diverse interpretations of their charge. This
resulted in considerable heterogeneity in the format of the breakout sessions and the outcomes. In some
instances a moderator was also an author of the section of the document discussed in the breakout session.
The dual role of author and moderator may have influenced the discussion and development of
conclusions in those sessions.
Prepublication 15
OCR for page 16
Non-governmental Industry
organization 9%
8%
Academia
36%
Government
47%
Figure 2-1. Workshop participants classified by affiliation (excluding NRC committee,
committee staff, and meeting staff).
At the conclusion of the breakout sessions, the session moderators convened in groups according
to theme. Each group then synthesized and condensed the results of the breakout session discussion.
Several common themes and points of consensus emerged during breakout session discussions in each
thematic area. There was no easy way to deal with orphan ideas in the summaries, but a special effort
was made to ensure that all ideas articulated during the breakout sessions were captured and transcribed
into the body of public comment. The moderators gave summary presentations in a closing plenary
session that, while uneven in scope and approach, provided a valuable overview of the results of the many
theme sessions. At the conclusion of the workshop there was a general expression of consensus and
support among the participants for the progress made during the workshop, although there was also a
sense that there was a lot of work ahead and many difficult issues to resolve in developing the draft plan.
The formal public comment period on the planning document was open from March 27 to May
15, 2006; extensive comments were submitted during this period. Comments were provided by 66
different organizations and individuals. The total length of the public comment document, made available
on the JSOST website, was 183 pages. There were several common themes expressed in the public
comments. One common refrain was the need to articulate the grand challenges in ocean science. The
planning document was not effective in capturing either the urgency or the excitement that provides the
rationale for developing a national plan for ocean science research. However, many of the public
comments noted that the keynote address at the Denver workshop, given by Admiral James D. Watkins
(ret.), chair of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, provided a model for how to enliven the research
plan. Additional common suggestions included improving connectivity and linkages between themes and
disciplines, expanding the context to include international efforts, emphasizing the impacts of climate
change and the role of humans in inducing climate change, and increasing focus on estuaries, coasts, and
the Great Lakes as an integral part of U.S. oceans. There was a great deal of variation in the degree to
which the JSOST succeeded in incorporating these comments into their revision. For example, many
comments were made on the weakness of "science-to-policy" considerations in the planning document;
with the addition of the section "Making a Difference" and its subsection "Information to Support
Decision Making," the draft plan made substantial improvements in this area.
In the months after the workshop and public comment period, a draft of the plan was developed
from the original planning document presented in Denver. The full draft plan was released by the JSOST
in August, 2006, and is the subject of this review. The August draft plan differed from the April planning
document in three significant ways: (1) the organizational framework of the document was changed, (2)
Prepublication 16
OCR for page 17
one thematic area was dropped and the others were revised, and (3) the section devoted to cross-cutting
themes (basic understanding of the ocean, research support through ocean observation and infrastructure,
and expanded ocean education) was eliminated and these themes were resorted under different headings
in the document.
ADDRESSING THE STATEMENT OF TASK
Statement of Task (8): Evaluate whether the format of the Denver workshop promoted the open
exchange of ideas and suggestions for improvement.
The committee finds that while the format of the Denver workshop was designed to promote the
open exchange of ideas and suggestions for improvement and did succeed to some extent in this regard,
changes in the goals of the workshop shortly before it began; relatively low attendance at the workshop,
particularly from non-governmental groups, including industry; and heterogeneity in the formats of the
break-out sessions diminished the level of inclusiveness and strategic planning evidenced at the
workshop. Following the Denver workshop there has been a significant effort by the JSOST leadership to
reach out to the ocean science community through meetings and formal public comment. The committee
commends the JSOST leadership for this series of public outreach meetings.
Prepublication 17
Representative terms from entire chapter:
public comment
