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 107
CHAPTER FIVE
Impediments to
More Effective
USGS Participation
in International
Science Activities
The influential and effective involvement of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
international science activities over many years has included numerous successful projects
with demonstrated benefits to U.S. government priorities and the USGS mission (see
Chapter 3). Despite this established history of accomplishments in international science,
USGS scientists, collectively and individually, face challenges in engaging in overseas activi-
ties and collaborations. The challenges and impediments identified in this chapter are based
on information gathered through presentations made to the committee and from conversa-
tions with Survey representatives, individuals who have worked as primary collaborators
and advisers on international projects with the Survey, and other professionals with direct
knowledge of USGS international work (see Appendix C). Although fact finding and
reporting in an assessment of this type involve some subjectivity, the challenges described
here are significant, in the opinion of the committee, and thus are worthy of attention.
FACTORS HINDERING PROGRESS
Various factors pose obstacles for more effective Survey participation in international
science activities. As discerned by the committee, these relate chiefly to (1) the lack of an
overall plan for USGS international science; (2) domestic mission pressures within the
Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USGS; (3) uneven disposition to undertake
international work among the Survey’s mission areas; (4) an institutional culture not yet
predisposed to implement international and cross-disciplinary activities across the entire
Survey or to implement a suitable reward system for participating in these international
activities; (5) a need for greater Survey coordination with international partners; and (6)
availability of resources. Each of these factors is discussed in subsequent sections.
107
OCR for page 108
I N T E R N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E I N T H E N AT I O N A L I N T E R E S T AT T H E U S G S
Lack of an Overall Plan for USGS International Science
The diverse international activities carried out by USGS scientists described in Chapter
3 are not presently part of an agency-wide plan or vision for international science. Although
the current strategic plans of the USGS and the DOI do acknowledge fundamental trends
such as globalization, climate change, and the importance of understanding the Earth as a
system (DOI, 2011a; USGS, 2007), the plans do not explicitly address USGS participation
in international science activities. High-level endorsement in these planning documents of
the importance of USGS involvement in international science activities—especially those
activities serving national interests and benefitting both the USGS and DOI domestic
missions—would be consistent with the level of international work already being conducted
by the Survey and, in the opinion of the committee, could mitigate some of the other chal-
lenges and roadblocks described below (see also Box 3.1).
DOI and USGS Domestic Mission Pressures
Under the Organic Act of 1879, the USGS was charged with “the classification of the
public lands and examination of the geologic structure, mineral resources, and products
of the national domain.” The Congress in 1962 expanded authorization for the USGS to
pursue similar activities outside the national domain, although this authority was not given
directly to the Survey but rather to the Secretary of the Interior, who may exercise that
authority through the USGS (see Box 2.1).
The mission of the DOI significantly influences the USGS to maintain focused at-
tention on its domestic role. For example, domestic agendas and performance measures
are outlined in the DOI’s new five-year strategic plan (DOI, 2011a). The key roles to be
played by the Survey in this framework are emphasized in a press release accompanying
the unveiling of the strategic plan (USGS, 2011a).
Although USGS international activities are allowed under the Organic Act, the guid-
ing authority of the Secretary of the Interior suggests the need for compelling arguments
to undertake such activities—whether these activities are advanced within other parts of
the Executive Branch or from within the USGS. One starting point for the USGS is to
demonstrate reciprocal benefits to the United States of its international science work in sup-
port of the Survey and DOI domestic missions. These benefits can be readily documented
(see Chapter 3) but in general, in the committee’s observations, they do not appear to have
been adequately or consistently communicated over the years in the USGS or the DOI,
or to the public. Some systematic and consistent basis for an evaluation of the benefits of
these international projects could play a useful role as part of the Survey’s documentation
of these activities. To the committee’s knowledge, no consistent internal or external evalu-
ation mechanisms are currently in place at the USGS for their international work. Lacking
108
OCR for page 109
Impediments to More Effective USGS Participation in International Science Activities
a more universal recognition of the benefits of USGS strategic international science to the
Nation or internal and extramural mechanisms to provide feedback on and evaluate the
success of international projects, the Survey’s domestic mission tends to be emphasized
and narrowly interpreted.
Uneven Disposition to International Work among the Survey’s Mission Areas
In the committee’s information gathering, we were struck by a remarkably uneven
response when asking representatives from the Survey’s various mission areas about in-
ternational science activities. The responses ranged from ready descriptions of ongoing
international activities, to ambivalence about such projects, to disinclination to undertake
overseas work. In the latter case, various factors have contributed, including the perception
that the USGS lacks a congressional mandate to extend activities into the international
arena; this perception makes some USGS scientists and program managers reluctant to
undertake these activities, particularly when setting priorities for resource allocations (see
also sections below). Correspondingly, the interests and aspirations of individual Survey
scientists toward international work or foreign travel to international meetings do not ap-
pear to be universally encouraged or strategically incentivized. Our observations suggest
that the uneven disposition to international work among the Survey’s mission areas may
be the combined result of perceived constraints on international work vis-à-vis the USGS
domestic mission, the relatively small number of congressional mandates clearly calling
for the USGS to conduct international work, and the absence of an agency-wide plan for
USGS international science. For reference, a compendium of congressional authorizations
for USGS activities, both domestic and international, is available in DOI (2011b, Part T).
Institutional Culture
The Survey’s institutional culture poses an assortment of challenges to encouraging
more universal engagement of USGS scientists in international activities. For example,
similar status and respect for international as well as domestic work in merit review for
USGS scientists would be consistent with an overall acknowledgement of international sci -
ence as an integral part of the USGS project portfolio. This kind of recognition could entail
support for presentation of scientific results of global work at international conferences and
publication in premier journals (see, for example, Appendix E). The committee’s observa-
tions did not indicate that international science conducted by USGS scientists is presently
given equal status to domestic project work throughout all of the science mission areas.
Interdisciplinary work—potentially aided by use of a systems approach to certain sci-
entific investigations—can strengthen the information and analysis provided from scientific
research and aligns well with the variety of international scientific opportunities and issues
109
OCR for page 110
I N T E R N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E I N T H E N AT I O N A L I N T E R E S T AT T H E U S G S
that fall within the USGS mission (see Chapter 4 for a selection of some of these op-
portunities; also Box 3.11). In an international project, carefully planned interdisciplinary
work can also maximize the value and return from invested resources (including costs for
preparation, field and analytical time, staff support, travel, and other logistics associated
with international campaigns). The USGS has, through its recent reorganization, attempted
to enhance the interdisciplinary nature of its scientific thrusts. International science is a
useful vehicle for the Survey, armed with its remarkable interdisciplinary competencies, to
embrace and encourage effective collaborative research in the investigation, quantification,
and amelioration of the effects of global change on the nation.
The rapid development and evolution of information technologies also poses a broad
institutional challenge. To its credit, the USGS is building new capabilities in informatics
as part of its restructuring. For more effective participation in international science activi-
ties, notably where vast datasets are involved, individual Survey scientists are likely to need
assistance in improving technical skills in order to use those informatics capabilities more
efficiently.
The new Environmental Health mission area faces a distinct challenge arising from the
restructuring of the USGS. Survey activities that enhance and support the Environmental
Health mission area cross with all of the other USGS mission areas. Essential to the success
of this mission area—particularly in the international arena—will be the establishment of
strong linkages and cooperation with the other USGS mission areas, including identifica-
tion of shared priorities and complementary capabilities. Ultimately, strategic planning
in the Environmental Health mission area will require a thoroughly integrated systems
approach.
Need for Greater USGS Coordination with International Partners
Effective engagement in international science activities requires efficient, wisely arranged
coordination with foreign partners. Bilateral arrangements on a case by case basis have great
utility in many situations. Multilateral arrangements, however, can also be appropriate for
projects that are directed toward a broad set of shared objectives; they can also be effective
in accommodating the different capacities and strengths of partnering agencies, and poten-
tially address a wider array of scientific questions. Some existing international coordination
mechanisms offer the opportunity to engage more effectively in multilateral arrangements to
conduct international science. The USGS does not, in the committee’s opinion, avail itself
of these international coordination mechanisms to the degree that it could.
These arrangements occur at the institution level and to some extent can be built on exist-
ing provisions maintained by USGS administrative units. Tri-national coordination in North
America, for example, can influence and be influenced by regional multinational geological
survey agency coordination mechanisms elsewhere, including EuroGeoSurveys, an organi-
110
OCR for page 111
Impediments to More Effective USGS Participation in International Science Activities
zation of 33 European Geological Surveys,1 the Coordinating Committee for Geoscience
Programmes in East and Southeast Asia,2 and federal models such as the Chief Government
Geologists’ Committee in Australia.3 Geological survey agency delegates at the 2008 Inter-
national Geological Congress in Oslo also discussed ways to further develop the organiza-
tion of the International Consortium of Geological Surveys (ICOGS) (IGC, 2008). New
arrangements for coordination are also emerging, such as the OneGeology project,4 which
has recently led to greatly improved collaboration among geological surveys around the world.
Availability of Resources
Because the USGS is the premier Earth science agency in the United States, Survey
scientists and administrators receive numerous requests for assistance to other countries
and for involvement in international cooperative activities. They face a tension between (1)
their inclination, as scientists, to do more international work, and (2) their duty, as public
servants, to discern the appropriate level of such commitments and the benefits both to U.S.
taxpayers and the USGS domestic mission. A constant factor in considering international
engagements is understaffing—even to handle domestic responsibilities. For example, in the
Earthquake Hazards Program, staffing has been reduced from a high of over 400 full-time
equivalents in the 1980s to fewer than 250 at the end of 2009, despite increased responsibili-
ties for monitoring, data analysis, and providing real-time information products (SESAC,
2010). Foreign travel also poses a challenge because commonly it is expensive.
International activities, insofar as they are supported by external funding, provide
a diversified source of financial support for some USGS science centers. However, the
committee was informed that restrictions on sources of funding and means of funding
(for example, in-kind contribution, repayment to a USGS account, payment directly to
the traveler) have increased in recent years, making it more difficult to organize repay-
ment of foreign travel costs for Survey scientists. Questions about how to assess overhead
on refunds of travel costs have also been raised, with potential to impact the availability
of funds originally intended for carrying out USGS scientific work. These issues may,
in turn, affect the effectiveness of and terms upon which agreements are negotiated
with potential project sponsors within the federal government (e.g., the U.S. Agency for
International Development) or by institutions such as the World Bank. The committee
also observed the challenges associated with making longer-term plans for multiyear
international projects within a federal system currently structured toward annual funding
appropriations.
See www.eurogeosurveys.org/.
1
See www.ccop.or.th/.
2
See www.geoscience.gov.au/ggic.jsp.
3
See www.onegeology.org/.
4
111
OCR for page 112
I N T E R N AT I O N A L S C I E N C E I N T H E N AT I O N A L I N T E R E S T AT T H E U S G S
The committee acknowledges that resource limitations, both in professional staffing and
funding, can impede any agency’s ability to undertake new efforts, whether domestic or interna-
tional. Perhaps the use of some of its available appropriated funds may offer some option for the
USGS to judiciously support selected overseas work, adding to the support provided for inter-
national projects as requested by external partners and managed through reimbursable funds.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The impediments to more effective USGS participation in international science activi-
ties are varied. Action for change presupposes a high-level commitment to the proposition
that international science activities are not just accommodated and ancillary to the Survey’s
mission but truly a fundamental part of the Survey’s aim “to help our Nation and the world”
(Gundersen et al., 2011: 3). Impediments that relate to mission pressures within the DOI
or to the flexibility of the USGS to undertake more international science activities, while
still ably performing its domestic mission, will continue to pose significant challenges. The
impediments most amenable for the USGS to overcome are those relating to an overall
plan for global science activities, cooperative and otherwise, and to the Survey’s present
institutional culture. If USGS participation in international science activities is to be more
effective in the future, then an overarching Survey-wide plan for such activities would rep-
resent a solid starting point. As with most federal agencies, increased funding may arguably
be a requirement for growth—but not for significant change.
REFERENCES
Gundersen, L.C.S., J. Belnap, M. Goldhaber, A. Goldstein, P.J. Haeussler, S.E. Ingebritsen, J.W. Jones, G.S. Plumlee, E.R.
Thieler, R.S. Thompson, and J.M. Back. 2011. Geology for a changing world 2010–2020—Implementing the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey science strategy: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1369, 68 pp. Available at pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1369.
IGC (International Geological Congress). 2008. General Proceedings of the 33rd International Geological Congress, August
6–14, Oslo, Norway. Available at www.33igc.org/coco/filepool.aspx?t=downloads%3a+publications+and+updates&con
tainerid=10728&parentid=5002&entrypage=true&guid=1&lnodeid=0&pageid=5001 (accessed October 28, 2011).
SESAC (Scientific Earthquake Studies Advisory Committee). 2010. Report for 2008–2009 of the Scientific Earthquake
Studies Advisory Committee to the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, 15 p. Available at earthquake.usgs.gov/
aboutus/sesac/reports.php.
DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2011a. Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2011–2016, 44 p., available at www.doi.gov/
bpp/data/PPP/DOI_StrategicPlan.pdf.
DOI. 2011b. Budget Justifications and Performance Information, Fiscal Year 2012, U.S. Geological Survey, 498 p., available
at http://www.usgs.gov/budget/2012/greenbook/greenbook_2012.pdf.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2007. USGS Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the De-
cade 2007-2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309. Available online at pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/ (accessed
September 29, 2011).
USGS. 2011a. “Science Earns Prominent Focus in the Department of the Interior’s New Five-Year Strategic Plan.” U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Press Release, January 26. Available at www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2687.
USGS. 2011b. Geology for a Changing World 2010–2020: Implementing the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy,
USGS Circular 1369, 68 p.
112
