|
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 18
3
Assessment of the Overall Plan
INTRODUCTION
The draft plan succeeds in a number of important ways. First, the important link between ocean
and society is clear and well articulated. Second, the committee agrees with the identification and the
importance of the overarching opportunities (developing the understanding and capability to forecast
ocean processes; collecting the scientific information needed to support ecosystem-based management of
resources, especially those found in coastal and near shore ecosystems; and accelerating deployment of an
ocean observing system that will, in turn, advance forecasting and management capabilities). Third, the
draft plan is organized around six broad themes and these themes succeed in capturing the main ocean-
related issues facing society in a comprehensive and coherent way. Fourth, the plan includes research
priorities in the social sciences, a necessary component for improving ocean stewardship. Finally, the
draft plan acknowledges the role of fundamental science in meeting the nation's needs for ocean research
and development.
The plan does less well at translating the link between society and the ocean into a bold and
compelling vision for ocean research in the next decade. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
(USCOP) final report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century, provides a useful example of such a
vision starting on page 4 ("A Vision and Strategy for the 21st Century and Beyond," USCOP, 2004).
There is a need to draw a clearer connection between the problems and opportunities facing society and
the specific challenges for ocean science, and between these specific challenges and the research priorities
identified in the plan. These connections were clearly elucidated in several recent national reports,
including those by the USCOP, the Pew Oceans Commission's America's Living Oceans: Charting a
Course for Sea Change and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative's From Sea to Shining Sea. The
JSOST draft plan mentions these reports only minimally and thus misses an opportunity to put the plan
into a larger context. A stronger connection to earlier reports would underscore the coherent evolution of
thinking about the critical role that ocean research plays in addressing the pressing problems and
opportunities facing society.
ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT PLAN
A further concern of the committee is the current organization of the plan, which differs from the
previous outlines in the Framework and Planning Documents. In particular, the committee is concerned
with changes in the discussion of some of the original cross-cutting issues, especially fundamental science
and education.
The draft plan does attempt to provide an overall vision and a sense of a grand challenge on pages
57-58 under the section "The Path Forward." The sub-section on "Overarching Opportunities" in
particular provides a vision of the future that is multi-faceted and from which numerous challenges and
Prepublication 18
OCR for page 19
related goals could be developed. This section could be strengthened significantly and moved to the front
of the plan with other cross-cutting elements.
The draft plan draws a somewhat sharp distinction between basic and applied science. In doing
so, the plan does not adequately reflect the nature of the scientific process in which basic process studies
continually interact with more applied observational and modeling efforts, both to advance science and
ultimately to inform and support policy decision making and societal needs. Improvements in models and
observing systems in terms of predictive ability and cost will depend on continuing advances in basic
knowledge. A consequence of separating fundamental from more applied science is the potential to
undervalue the role of basic science in supporting all types of scientific research and application. Ocean
research contributes insights that advance other fields of science in addition to addressing the science-
based ocean policy and management needs. As one example, basic research in acoustic propagation,
remote sensing, turbulence, environmental prediction, and novel vehicles has led to operationally
important military systems. Similarly, experiments with marine communities and organisms provide
insight into the underlying processes controlling the organization and functioning of ecological
communities more generally. This point reflects the general connectedness of science in many ways
across subject boundaries that at first glance may appear quite impenetrable. It is critical to recognize that
basic and applied science represent a continuum, not discrete entities. The solid arrow in Figure 3-1
represents how societal goals can drive an applied research agenda, which is highlighted by the ORPP.
The dashed arrows represent the nature of the scientific enterprise and the resulting linkages between
societal needs, and applied and basic science. The presence of these feedbacks illustrates the dependence
of one type of scientific endeavor on the other.
The committee suggests that the importance of wide-ranging fundamental research, while
acknowledged in the plan, could be bolstered. The committee agrees with the JSOST view, that
fundamental research is the crucial foundation for progress in all of the themes and should continue to "be
driven by competitive, merit-based investigations" and not constrained to the subjects of the themes. This
will allow for the continued infusion of curiosity-driven inquiry and novel findings, thereby supporting
"unexpected breakthroughs" across many fields. As it stands, the plan ineffectively addresses the role of
basic research in achieving the priorities identified in the plan. The discussion of fundamental science
could be more effectively highlighted as a cross-cutting element, connected to the subsequent discussion
of the themes by statements that provide examples of ways in which fundamental research could lead to
progress in those theme priority areas. An associated modification of the thematic discussions would then
serve to close this connection and emphasize the core importance of breakthroughs in fundamental
science to advancing research priorities in the themes.
Figure 3-1. The interconnected nature of science and societal needs.
Prepublication 19
OCR for page 20
Clearly, two issues central to assessing the feasibility of the plan and its responsiveness to the
nation's needs are the level and allocation of funding and the strategy for implementation. The draft plan
is silent on these issues, making it difficult to assess either feasibility or responsiveness. Because many
priorities rely on large infrastructure investments or will require establishment of new research programs,
there is a need to spell out the general funding assumptions under which the plan was developed (as was
done, for example by both the Pew Oceans Commission [2003] and the USCOP [2004] in their
discussions of future ocean science support). The ORPP section titled "The Next Steps" provides an
outline of topics to be addressed in the Implementation Strategy. The first bullet, "Roles and
responsibilities of each constituent sector (e.g. federal agencies, state agencies, private sector, academia
and non-governmental organizations) in planning, programming, budgeting and execution of the
priorities" (p. 64, lines 8-10 of the ORPP), identifies issues that will be critical to ensure success of the
plan The coordination of effort among the agencies provides much of the justification for this research
planning effort and cannot be overemphasized in the Implementation Strategy.
In addition, the committee has a specific concern that the operation of an integrated ocean
observing system will degrade the nation's research capabilities unless mechanisms are developed to
transfer fiscal responsibility from research programs to operational entities. The plan correctly recognizes
the importance of developing technologies into operational capabilities (p. 53, line 24), but one of the
major stumbling blocks in this step is not mentioned the need for a sustainable source of support for
operations such as ocean observations. Enhancing ocean observations is clearly required to address the
research priorities identified in the draft plan. If the observing system is explicitly designed, deployed,
and operated to benefit both scientific and operational activities, it will be necessary to develop a cost-
sharing approach for the operational and research programs. The need to plan for the transfer of research-
oriented observation capabilities to operational observing programs has become a major concern, as
indicated by the focus on this issue in several recent NRC reports (e.g., NRC, 2003a, 2003b).
Education is another element that does not receive sufficient emphasis, primarily because of the
ineffective placement of the discussion towards the end of the plan. Education is integral to the entire
ocean enterprise and its value and many contributions to the research enterprise should be emphasized as
an essential, cross-cutting element of the ocean research plan, as illustrated in Figure 3-2.
EDUCATION
EDUCATION [in ocean, coastal, and marine sciences] is defined as a proactive communication that
imparts the knowledge and value of ocean, coastal, and marine sciences products and services to people
of the nation and the world; promoting environmental stewardship and public safety; and fostering a
sustainable economy. [Adapted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]
OCEAN, COASTAL, AND MARINE EDUCATION CAN:
· Enhance public awareness of the ocean and increase scientific literacy
· Ensure that present and future workforce needs are met
· Communicate societal needs to the public; policy makers; decision makers; and to biological,
physical, and social scientists
· Impart to stakeholders knowledge at the interfaces and fringes of disciplinary, multidisciplinary
and interdisciplinary ocean, coastal, and marine sciences
· Apply research findings to operational benefits for the global society
Figure 3-2. The contribution of education to the ORPP.
Prepublication 20
OCR for page 21
The committee notes that there are a number of times in this review where it is suggested that the
draft ORPP does not provide sufficient detail to adequately describe or develop the arguments for a
particular theme, priority, etc. The committee realizes that the JSOST needs to keep the ORPP as short
and succinct as possible. However, even though the additional detail could make the plan a little longer,
this added information will make the plan much more credible, useful, and scientifically acceptable.
Some of the background discussion in the plan could be trimmed or concern about a longer plan could be
allayed by a particularly succinct and readable Executive Summary.
THEMES
The draft plan is organized around six societal themes. The themes successfully capture the main
ocean-related issues facing society, have an interdisciplinary focus, and would benefit from a
collaborative approach among federal, state, and local agencies to integrate efforts. However, the draft
plan is less successful at elucidating the linkages between and among these themes. These connections
identify opportunities for collaborative research efforts in addition to the overarching opportunities. The
process of connecting could also illuminate potential areas where the discussion of the science in the
themes is inconsistent. For example, the text in the "Stewardship of Our Natural and Cultural Ocean
Resources" theme discusses the need to expand data collection efforts to determine the "worth" of natural
resources using current valuation methodologies, and the "Improving Ecosystem Health" section makes
the point that new approaches are needed to evaluate the consumptive and non-consumptive use value of
natural resources. More details on the linkages among themes will be provided in Chapter 4.
PRIORITIES
Within each theme, the draft plan identifies a small number of priorities intended to guide effort
toward the most important scientific objectives that must be reached to achieve the larger societal goals.
There is no ranking of the priorities either within or across themes. Because the research priority
statements are phrased as broad, sometimes all encompassing, objectives rather than specific research
needs, they only partially meet the intention to guide future scientific efforts. The terms "Understand"
and "Apply" are more typically used for describing societal goals and are ineffective in conveying the
scientific questions and technological innovations required to advance knowledge. Similarly problematic
is the use of the word "priority." By definition, "priority" implies precedence in importance, timing, or
some other characteristic. However, because of their lack of specificity, the priorities do not clearly
indicate a sense of value, urgency, or ranking. In other words, many of these priorities are too general to
provide useful guidance. Three examples suffice to illustrate this point. A priority under the theme
"Stewardship of Our Natural and Cultural Ocean Resources" is to "understand interspecies and
habitat/species relationships as a basis for forecasting resource stability and sustainability." The activities
enumerated under this theme include "data collection, experimentation, and advanced modeling" with an
additional four priorities listed for natural-resource modeling. It is fair to say that this priority essentially
covers the entire field of marine ecology. A priority under the theme "The Ocean's Role in Climate" is to
"understand ocean-climate interactions across regions." The specific issues raised under this priority
include "the influence of the global tropical ocean phenomena (as demonstrated by El Niņo, [the Pacific
Decadal Oscillation] PDO, and [North Atlantic Oscillation] NAO events and monsoons in the Indian and
eastern Pacific ocean)" and ascertaining "the role of the deep ocean ... particularly with regards to
mitigating climate change (e.g., via carbon sequestration and heat storage)." Again, these are
monumental scientific challenges covering a large part of physical and chemical oceanography. A
priority under the theme "Enhancing Human Health" is to "understand human health risks associated with
the ocean and the potential benefits of ocean resources to human health." In large part, this is simply a
restatement of the theme. By encompassing virtually the entire scope of research under a theme, many of
Prepublication 21
OCR for page 22
the priority statements do not suggest prioritization. The near-term priorities provide an example of true
priority setting because they clearly give precedence with respect to implementation.
Although it may seem paradoxical, at the same time that many of the research priority statements
are too broad to serve as a guide, some of the supporting text is overly prescriptive with regard to the type
of scientific activity specified to address the priority. For example, supporting text under the priority
statement "Understand human health risks associated with the ocean and the potential benefits of ocean
resources to human health," listed in the theme "Enhancing Human Health," calls for the integration of
ocean data and modeling "with epidemiologic studies to define exposures and refine risk assessments."
Although this integration may indeed be valuable, epidemiologic studies may not be the optimal tool in
every circumstance. In one case, the wording of the priority statement under the theme Improving
Ecosystem Health, "understand and predict the impact of natural and anthropogenic processes that govern
the overall level of ecosystem productivity," is too limited. Singling out productivity as a measure of
ecosystem status is overly restrictive and captures neither the complexity nor the variety of ecosystems
and the services they provide. The optimal mix of process, observational, and modeling studies will
depend on the specifics of the research project and hence will be more effectively determined by scientists
endeavoring to address these research priorities. This statement could be rephrased as: "Develop the
capability to predict the impact of natural and anthropogenic processes on ecological systems." A number
of system characteristics, including organization, composition, complexity, and productivity, are
important to consider both as measures of impact and as factors that ultimately influence the direction and
magnitude of ecological responses. Particular attention should be paid to non-linear dynamics, threshold
responses, and properties that influence the ability of systems to resist or recover from natural and
anthropogenic stressors.
The ORPP identifies specific criteria by which research priorities were selected (presumably from
a longer list of candidate priorities). However, the connection between these criteria and the specific
priorities that were selected is not spelled out (see chapter 4 for additional discussion). In addition, the
plan does not provide a schedule for addressing the priorities and lacks benchmarks for measuring
progress.
The committee believes that some of the problems identified above could be alleviated by
expanding the theme-priority hierarchy through the introduction of an intermediate level that identifies
"challenges for science and society." As it stands, the themes refer to societal issues, while the priorities
are phrased as broad research goals for addressing these issues. Between these two levels, large-scale
scientific challenges could be articulated to assist in the formulation of more tightly focused research
priorities. Some examples are given in Box 3-1. These challenges would galvanize the ocean research
and policy communities and more convincingly convey the need for an ocean research plan to address
societal concerns. The examples in Box 3-1 are provided only to illustrate how challenges could be
incorporated under the themes. Identification of "challenges" is an integral step in the development of the
research plan and as such should be undertaken by the JSOST.
Prepublication 22
OCR for page 23
Box 3-1
Examples of Challenges for Science and Society
Theme: The Ocean's Role in Climate
Challenge for Science and Society: By 2020, determine environmentally safe limits and conditions for
disposal of excess CO2 in the ocean and develop economically viable disposal methods that meet those
conditions.
Challenge for Science and Society: By 2020, assess the risk and prospects of abrupt climate change.
Theme: Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources
Challenge for Science and Society: Within the next decade, develop ecosystem-based models that
accurately predict future abundances of all major harvested fish populations within a given ecosystem.
Challenge for Science and Society: Assess the potential for ocean energy and its likely ecological impacts
by 2020.
TIME FRAME
The committee struggled with Task 3b (Is the time frame for attaining the priorities realistic?).
Initially, the committee attempted to address this task for each of the priorities that were stated in the draft
ORPP. Because of the linkages among these priorities, as discussed in Chapter 4, progress toward certain
priorities will be affected by progress toward one or more of the others. It also became clear that because
the 21 longer-term priorities were so broadly stated, the committee could not answer Task 3b without
information about how the research priorities would be implemented. As noted in Chapter 4, the
discussion of the priorities does not convey the degree of difficulty or challenge in achieving them, nor an
assessment of where the ocean research community stands today, making it difficult to address
realistically the likely time frame for success. There are no explicit, or even implicit, milestones.
PRESENTATION
The organization of the draft plan undercuts many of the valuable points that are made in the text.
The current draft could be revised in accordance with the JSOST's Ocean Priorities Framework (April,
2005) which would address many of the shortcomings identified in this review. The Framework
document lists the following sections as part of the draft plan: Vision, Challenges, Principles and Critical
Elements, Themes, Goals, Resources, and Evaluating Performance. Alternatively, the use of cross-cutting
themes, similar to the approach in the April, 2006, Planning Document but placed early in the ORPP,
would give these issues greater emphasis and illustrate many of the connections among the themes. A
possible new outline for the plan is provided in Box 3.2. Strong editorial attention is needed throughout
the document to help to make it more exciting, dynamic, organized, and readable. The use of boxes,
figures, tables, pictures, and other tools would help to highlight information by consolidating it and
presenting it in a format that has a higher reader impact.
Prepublication 23
OCR for page 24
Box 3-2
Potential Outline
1) Vision
2) Approach
3) Crosscuts
a) Fundamental Science/Basic Research
b) Development of predictive models
c) Integrated Assessments
d) Ocean Observations
e) Information to support decision making
f) Ocean education ocean literacy and workforce development
4) Themes #1-6
a) Challenges
b) Research Goals and Priorities
i) Timeframe
ii) Benchmarks
c) Tools
5) Near term priorities
ADDRESSING THE STATEMENTS OF TASK
Statement of Task (1): Is the plan responsive to the nation's needs for ocean research and
development?
The committee finds that, at a broad level, the draft plan is generally responsive to the nation's
needs for ocean research and development in addressing present problems and opportunities facing
society. The draft plan is less responsive to the need for ocean research that, while not directly connected
to today's challenges, will provide the basis for addressing challenges of the future. The draft plan also
lacks a bold and compelling vision for ocean research and development over the next decade.
Statement of Task (2): Does the plan effectively link proposed S&T developments to benefits of the
nation with regard to quality of life, safety and security, economic growth, environmental
sustainability, and education?
The committee finds that, as a result of the use of vague statements to characterize research
priorities, the plan does not effectively link proposed scientific and technical developments to benefits to
the nation with regard to quality of life, safety and security, environmental sustainability, and education.
Prepublication 24
OCR for page 25
Statement of Task (3b): Is the time frame for attaining the priorities realistic?
Because the 21 longer-term priorities were so broadly stated, the committee finds that it cannot
determine how realistic this time frame is without additional information specifying how the priorities
will be implemented.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To address these shortcomings, the committee has the following general recommendations:
· The Ocean Research Priorities Plan should provide a bold and compelling vision for the
future of ocean science research. This vision should be placed near the front of the plan and
referenced in the discussions of the theme priorities. This would help to integrate the
discrete sections of the plan.
· The plan should be reorganized to include a discrete section devoted to cross-cutting
elements that are central to the vision for ocean research. The concept of cross-cutting
themes used in the Planning Document should be reintroduced and moved toward the
beginning of the plan as a way to reinforce the importance of these elements in creating the
foundation for progress on the societal themes. In particular, the section Expanding the
Scientific Frontier: The Need for Fundamental Science should be included as one of these
cross-cuts and revised to strengthen the rationale for basic research. Examples of the role of
basic research in advancing the goals of the societal themes should be used to illustrate why
this is a cross-cutting issue.
· The plan should identify challenges under each theme that provide a more inspiring
rationale for the research priorities.
· Carefully formulated and well-justified research priorities should be identified that are
clearly connected to scientific challenges. The Implementation Strategy should include a
schedule by which these priorities could reasonably be addressed and a set of benchmarks
by which progress toward this goal could be assessed.
Prepublication 25
Representative terms from entire chapter:
ocean research
