Scientific Issues in the International Exchange of Data in the Natural Sciences

Science is the process and the product of discovering the cumulative body of knowledge and understanding through which we humans comprehend the tangible universe. Its cumulative nature is a key to the uniqueness of the knowledge gained in the natural sciences. This knowledge is sometimes reorganized at a profound conceptual level when a field undergoes a shift of paradigm—for example, the change from the caloric fluid to the kinetic theory of heat or from the continuum of classical mechanics to the discreteness and duality of quantum mechanics. Yet the facts of science and the links among them remain; we may change the way we interpret those links, but the body of scientific data continues to accumulate.

Data in science are like bricks, and the theoretical concepts are the mortar that connects them to give a subject its structure. Each new bit of data plays a part: it may be uncovered in efforts to test a hypothesis, estimated from previous information, or collected in observations, experiments, or computations. As an observed or measured new piece of information, it becomes part of our base of knowledge, to share, interpret, and reconcile with the data already in hand. Scientists ask, "Are these new data consistent with what we already know? Are they just what we might have expected, or do they require us to question the results, to repeat the experiment, or to find a new interpretation that accounts for why the data are what they are?" When the scientific community resolves these questions, the new data become part of the foundation on which the next conjectures and experimental plans build. At this stage, also, researchers begin to consider the implications of the new data, both to strengthen and extend basic understanding in the natural sciences and to seek applications that may bring benefits to



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 47
--> Scientific Issues in the International Exchange of Data in the Natural Sciences Science is the process and the product of discovering the cumulative body of knowledge and understanding through which we humans comprehend the tangible universe. Its cumulative nature is a key to the uniqueness of the knowledge gained in the natural sciences. This knowledge is sometimes reorganized at a profound conceptual level when a field undergoes a shift of paradigm—for example, the change from the caloric fluid to the kinetic theory of heat or from the continuum of classical mechanics to the discreteness and duality of quantum mechanics. Yet the facts of science and the links among them remain; we may change the way we interpret those links, but the body of scientific data continues to accumulate. Data in science are like bricks, and the theoretical concepts are the mortar that connects them to give a subject its structure. Each new bit of data plays a part: it may be uncovered in efforts to test a hypothesis, estimated from previous information, or collected in observations, experiments, or computations. As an observed or measured new piece of information, it becomes part of our base of knowledge, to share, interpret, and reconcile with the data already in hand. Scientists ask, "Are these new data consistent with what we already know? Are they just what we might have expected, or do they require us to question the results, to repeat the experiment, or to find a new interpretation that accounts for why the data are what they are?" When the scientific community resolves these questions, the new data become part of the foundation on which the next conjectures and experimental plans build. At this stage, also, researchers begin to consider the implications of the new data, both to strengthen and extend basic understanding in the natural sciences and to seek applications that may bring benefits to

OCR for page 47
--> society and progress in bettering the human condition. Throughout this process, scientific data are the cumulative substance on which all of science builds. Data in science are universal—they have the same validity for scientists everywhere. The atomic mass of iron, the structure of DNA, and the amount of rainfall in Manaus in 1972 are facts independent of the political views of their user, the time at which we determine them (apart from the evolving, improving accuracy of the determinations), or the user's location. Their utility depends on the precision and accuracy with which they are determined and the units we use to express them. A DNA sequence or a nuclear cross section can be as important to a researcher in Novosibirsk as it is to another in Pasadena. Consequently, except in situations involving national security, the protection of individual privacy,1 or proprietary rights, scientists have developed an ethic of full and open exchange of data, within and across national boundaries. Although infringements occasionally do occur, they typically generate community disapproval. Full and open exchange of information is a fundamental tenet of basic science that scientists regard as essential to optimizing their own work and that of their colleagues, as well as to enabling the advance of science overall.2 Traditionally, scientific data were compilations in lists, tables, and books—essentially all on paper—which circulated like all other scholarly information, through personal exchanges, subscriptions, and libraries. Today, electronic handling of scientific information is becoming the norm. With this evolution has come a dramatic increase in the international scope of scientific cooperation and exchange of information. While basic science has always been largely a collaborative activity that readily crossed national boundaries, electronic communication has made this cooperation much more informal, intimate, instantaneous, and continuous than ever before. Consequently, scientific data now may flow between scientists in different parts of the world as if they were across the street. Scientists have been, to a large extent, the creators of the means and the environment for the ethical code governing the open exchange of their data. This is as true in the evolving electronic environment as it has been in the past. Now, however, interests outside the scientific community are exerting forces on that environment that could severely restrict this open exchange. Scientists believe that restrictions on data access will slow the progress of science and significantly diminish the potential benefits that science renders to society. An important consideration in any discussion of exchange of scientific data concerns the "market" in which scientists participate, and particularly what its "goods" and "return" are. Scientists in academia and government are motivated overwhelmingly by the desire to generate ideas that influence the course of science. They want their papers to be read, so much so that they regularly pay page charges to have those papers published. Traditional concepts of copyright, protection of intellectual property, and financial return to the creator of a written work may apply to a scientist who writes a textbook, but become irrelevant to the researcher publishing a paper in a scientific journal. Publishers of such journals,

OCR for page 47
--> sometimes including professional societies, adhere to traditional motivations for protection of intellectual property and copyright. Scientists are usually delighted when someone wants to photocopy their articles; their publishers are sometimes aghast at the same photocopying act. This tension is often overlooked in considerations of adapting to electronic exchange of scientific information. It becomes especially important when one tries to bring economic and legal thinking to bear on the management of scientific data, and on the behavior and the system of values of scientists. (For more detailed discussion on these issues, see Chapters 4 and 5.) This report focuses primarily on international access to scientific data for basic research purposes. Nevertheless, in some disciplines, such as meteorology, a significant part of the data is generated to serve the general public by making possible severe weather and flood warnings and associated weather prediction. In formulating policies for international data exchange, the need for data for these applications also must be taken into account. In this chapter the committee broadly characterizes types of scientific data and their use in the laboratory physical sciences, astronomy and space sciences, Earth sciences, and biological sciences; outlines some of the major data trends, opportunities, and challenges in the natural sciences; discusses selected discipline-specific issues; and describes problems of access to data in less developed countries. The chapter concludes with the committee's recommendations for steps to improve access to data in the natural sciences worldwide. TYPES OF DATA AND THEIR USE IN DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES There are several ways to characterize scientific data: among others, by form, whether numerical, symbolic, still image, animation, or some other; by the way they were generated or gathered, that is, from experiment, observation, or simulation; by level of quality; by the size or form of the databases that contain them; by the nature of the support for their generation or distribution, that is, public or private, national or international; and, of course, by subject. Perhaps the most obvious differentiation is according to the degree of refinement of data along the path from collection to publication. Several linked levels of data can be distinguished in this hierarchy, beginning with initially collected experimental or observational data. In the laboratory sciences today, data at this first level are rarely raw readings or counts. Sophisticated means for gathering and manipulating such information have softened the concept of "primary" data. The computer mediating an experiment is likely to extract from several measurements some average of the total signal minus the background noise. Frequently, the first data an experimenter sees appear as a curve or a set of points that represents addition, subtraction, and averaging of several kinds of measurements, all collected and manipulated electronically. While some of these data may be published as tables, most data at this

OCR for page 47
--> level have limited distribution. They are useful when shared among the participants in a large collaboration, for example, in a high-energy physics experiment. International distribution of data of this kind is normal practice, particularly among collaborating scientists. The second major level of data in the laboratory sciences is usually published scientific results based on collected data, sometimes including the data and sometimes only providing a pathway by which the data can be obtained. Evaluated data files, the next level in the hierarchy, are compilations of data from several sources created when an "evaluator" has worked to obtain the "best" values of the tabulated quantities. Such files are often broadly disseminated, sometimes in journals established for that purpose, such as the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data; increasingly, these files will be available electronically and, with hypertext, will be linked, so that anyone reading a manuscript will have ready access to on-line data files on which published results are based, just by clicking on the relevant figure or text. When data are structured or compiled in an organized manner, whether in raw form or after thorough evaluation or processing, they become a database. In the observational sciences, scientific research leads to the generation of data that can be processed and interpreted at different levels of complexity.3 Typically, each level of processing adds value to the original, raw data by summarizing the original product, synthesizing a new product, or providing an interpretation of the original data. The processing of data leads to an inherent paradox that may not be readily apparent. The original unprocessed, or minimally processed, data are usually the most difficult to understand or use by anyone other than the expert primary user. With every successive level of processing, the data tend to become more understandable and better documented for the nonexpert user. One might therefore assume that it is the most highly processed data that have the greatest value for long-term preservation and international exchange, as in the case of the laboratory sciences, because they are more easily understood by a broader spectrum of potential users. In fact, just the opposite is usually the case for observational data, because it is only with the original unprocessed data that it will be possible to recreate all other levels of processed data and data products. To do so, however, requires preservation of the necessary information about the processing steps and ancillary data. Another important way to characterize scientific data in general is by quality, as indicated by their degree of acceptance in the scientific community. "Prepublication" data bear no certification whatsoever. Such data would, for example, be considered by most scientists to be inappropriate as legal evidence. Data accepted for publication in a refereed journal carry a certification that they, and the text that accompanies them, contain no obvious error and are admissible topics of scientific discourse. Published data, however, are often challenged, and occasionally the data or their interpretations prove erroneous. When they have been thoroughly validated, data become dogma. Values of natural constants, to

OCR for page 47
--> some number of decimal places, are firmly established in this way. Steps toward confirmation of the soccer-ball structure of the molecule C60 illustrate this progression in acceptance and endorsement of data and their interpretation. At first it was conjectured, prior to publication; then the proposed structure was published and shown to be consistent with other evidence then available. When a method appeared for preparing the substance in macroscopic quantities, new experiments, notably x-ray diffraction, nuclear magnetic resonance, and infrared spectroscopy, gave unassailable proof that the molecule is indeed shaped like a soccer ball. Since then, nobody would think of questioning that structure. Particular uses of data and characteristics of disciplines in the natural sciences influence needs for and conditions affecting global access to information in those areas of research. Examples of successful international data exchange activities in each of these areas are given in Appendix C. Laboratory Physical Sciences The laboratory physical sciences comprise an interrelated set of disciplines that includes chemistry, materials science, physics, and the subdisciplines and applications of each of these. The primary users of most of the data generated and exchanged in these fields are other physical scientists, although data from research in chemistry, materials science, and condensed-matter and polymer physics find heavy secondary use in manufacturing and engineering applications. Recognition of potential new or changed applications often stimulates the generation of new data and concepts from basic science in these areas; the flow of stimuli as well as data runs both ways, between applied and basic sides of these sciences. The laboratory physical sciences generate data largely from experiments, simulations, or theoretical computations.4 (In the observational sciences, the data typically describe single, unique events, such as the weather on a particular day or the explosion of a supernova.) Although experiments in the physical sciences can be repeated, it is often the case that due to the size of the apparatus, the extent of the collaboration, the rarity or uniqueness of the test material, and the expense involved, the results of a single experiment are adopted and exchanged.5 Instead of simply repeating experiments, scientists in these fields generally learn of a new advance and quickly use it as a steppingstone to go beyond that advance, frequently by modifying the technique or the apparatus. In the case of less complex laboratory research, scientists typically repeat the previous experiments, as much to validate the new approach as to check the previous results. The research results and the underlying data from basic experimental research are not limited by national boundaries. Information presented in an international meeting, a seminar by a foreign visitor, or an electronically circulated preprint is at least as likely as a new publication in an international journal to stimulate a new line of work. When scientists are engaged in international collaboration and exchange

OCR for page 47
--> data that are not yet ready for publication, the national boundaries separating the collaborators are even more transparent. Another characteristic of the physical sciences is associated with the established theoretical framework of many of the subdisciplines. The data derived from the theoretical numerical simulations in many cases look like experimental data, and often are replicated. These simulations, particularly animations, may not be part of the conventional manuscripts that report the results, but this kind of information is now exchanged globally on a variety of media. Exchanging data from simulations is a process vulnerable to the congestion problems of the Internet, described in Chapter 2, especially as the volume of such data grows. Like all other scientific disciplines today, the physical sciences use electronic networks to coordinate, collect, compile, and distribute nonproprietary data through informal and formal means. Projects to evaluate data on particular topics, such as the thermodynamic or spectroscopic properties of a set of closely related substances, typically involve small international collaborations that communicate by Internet. More complex efforts, such as determining the "best" values of natural constants, require more formal cooperative working arrangements and regular data exchange. One such effort is the maintenance of the Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File (ENSDF), an electronic database of evaluated data on properties of atomic nuclei and on radiation produced by decay of unstable nuclei. The database has existed in electronic form for about 25 years. An international network of individuals carries out its evaluations. Within the United States, this work is coordinated and supervised by the National Nuclear Data Center at Brookhaven National Laboratory; internationally, the International Atomic Energy Agency performs these functions. The ENSDF effort collects data from publications and other sources and then evaluates and distributes the data in a variety of formats as users call for it. Prior to the Internet, these data came to ENSDF on magnetic tapes, but now they arrive via electronic network, primarily by file transfer protocol, a convenient and widely used mode of transferring data electronically at moderately high speed. The dissemination effort is truly worldwide, with active on-line accounts in approximately 40 countries, on six continents. This system is described in more detail in Appendix C. Physical scientists, in general, seek the most timely, lowest-cost, and most widely effective means for disseminating their results and for obtaining those of others, as long as proper citation is not compromised. Apart from proprietary data associated with commercial products, data in the physical sciences tend to be readily available, through journals, government publications, and books, and increasingly, through electronically available databases. The databases in the laboratory physical sciences may seem large in comparison with, for example, dictionaries; nonetheless, among the four areas of natural science considered in this report, the laboratory physical sciences typically have the smallest databases.

OCR for page 47
--> Astronomy and Space Sciences The primary needs for and uses of data from space are in fundamental research, but there are many collateral applications, such as precise positioning, mapping of the Earth, navigation, education, and even entertainment, as the public interest in Comet Shoemaker-Levy demonstrated. Astronomy is indeed interesting to the public. As such, its data must not only be collected, but also be interpreted and made available for formal and informal educational purposes, as well as for the advancement of our knowledge about the universe. Most data in astronomy and space sciences come from observations made from Earth's surface or from spacecraft;6 a modest fraction of the data comes from laboratory experiments. The data from experiments, terrestrial or in spacecraft, conform closely in character to data in the laboratory physical sciences. Usually, an individual observer or observing project collects the data and distributes them to other individuals as soon as they have been taken. These data frequently have significant value to other researchers and for purposes other than those for which they were gathered. It is useful, for example, to compare data taken by different observers in different wavelength bands or to compare observations at different times in order to interpret variable objects. Hence it is important to store space science data in a form readily available to other researchers. Most astronomical data archives, which are open to all scientists, do so. Use of these archives is limited only by ease and cost of access. Consequently, this community has had to adopt efficient data management practices throughout the life cycle of the data, to permit effective access by the entire community, national and international. Research in astronomy and space sciences is collaborative and, inherently, deeply international; it requires multinational efforts to collect data and to implement efficient transnational exchange of data. Electronic links now provide the requisite efficient communications and exchange of data. The scientific reasons for this international character include the following: Ground-based observatories must be located at optimal observing sites, such as mountaintops with good observing conditions, which are found only in certain countries; Some experiments require simultaneous observations at several points, such as long-baseline radiointerferometry; Only parts of the sky can be seen from any single location; and Some observations, such as those in the x-ray and far-ultraviolet regions, can be made only from outside the atmosphere, and hence require orbiting observatories, while others require sending probes to other planets, which creates a need for collaboration with scientists in nations that have space programs. An economic driving force for the internationalization of space science is the

OCR for page 47
--> high cost of large new facilities; this encourages international collaboration as a means of cost-sharing. Thus, the Hubble Space Telescope was developed and is operated as a partnership of NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA), with access available to astronomers from all over the world. The Gemini project, building two 8-meter telescopes, one in Hawaii and one in Chile, is a partnership of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil. Even without explicit or formal collaboration, international sharing of astronomical data generally enhances the field. Recent examples include the impact of Comet Shoemaker-Levy on Jupiter, the International Halley Watch, the observations of Comet Hyakutake, and the observations of Supernova 1987a. Still less organized research projects are enabled daily by accessing archived data for historical and multiwavelength comparisons and by facilitating communication among collaborating astronomers. Astronomers and space scientists establish research strategies and priorities for data collection in their subdisciplines. In the United States, this is usually done within the National Research Council, for example, under the decadal Astronomy Survey Committees or the Space Studies Board's planetary and space physics science strategy panels, or by NASA or National Science Foundation (NSF) science working groups or ad hoc science community studies. Other nations and international organizations develop similar research strategies, for example, the ESA's Horizon 2000, plans for the European Southern Observatory, and the international Gemini project. Such planning efforts are becoming more international and effectively identify data needs and policies in support of the projects. Earth Sciences In the broadest terms, Earth science data are fundamental to the discovery and creation of knowledge concerning the interactions among matter, energy, and living organisms.7 Development of this knowledge is essential for ensuring the prospect for humanity on our finite planet in the face of rapid demographic and economic growth. Between 1820 and 1992, the world population increased 5 times and the gross domestic product per person grew 8 times, with a resulting global economy growth rate of 40 times. World trade grew more than 500 times. 8 The best estimate at this time is that the increase in population over the next 50 years will be greater in real numbers than the increase over the last 170 years, accompanied by further large increases in economic activity and world trade.9 This situation will bring to the fore new environmental issues and problems that will press us ever more urgently to ameliorate the impact of humankind on the environment. Within the purview of the physical Earth sciences are natural phenomena at all spatial and temporal scales that present major scientific challenges for understanding and prediction. These phenomena include natural hazards such as hur-

OCR for page 47
--> ricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Besides the societal impacts associated with climate, natural hazards, and natural resources, there are numerous man-made hazards that are coupled with natural phenomena that are the subject of Earth science research. Examples include the prediction and mitigation of pollution plumes in ground water or the atmosphere (e.g., chemicals or radioactive materials), the factors involved in stratospheric ozone depletion, and the monitoring of treaties that ban underground nuclear testing (e.g., in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). The physical, chemical, and biological processes that shape the world in which we live are complex and interdependent. To understand them requires observations with sufficient spatial and temporal resolution and coverage to characterize the phenomena of interest and to constrain theoretical predictions that are based on conceptual or quantitative models. Therefore, the lifeblood of research in most of the Earth sciences is observational data, sometimes global in coverage, and taken repeatedly over time. Many of these data also must be integrated with data from experimental manipulations, or from other disciplines. An example is atmospheric circulation, which controls weather over the entire Earth with significant variations on time scales ranging from hours to decades or longer, and spatial scales ranging from less than 1 km to thousands of kilometers. Weather forecasts for more than a day at a time require the rapid and repeated acquisition, processing, and interpretation of very large amounts of synoptic observations on at least a continental scale. Satellite systems that gather the necessary data have been and are being developed, but timely access to the data gathered by different organizations or countries is a major concern. Climate studies require many of the same observations as for weather prediction, but also data on the oceans, land surface, and cryosphere for the entire Earth. Therefore, international sharing of very large volumes of global atmospheric circulation data is essential for meaningful scientific investigation of past and present climates. Scientific knowledge in the various subdisciplines of the Earth sciences has advanced to the point where important, multidisciplinary global-scale problems can be tackled with insight and scientific rigor, provided that high-quality global observations are available and that computational resources are adequate to process and interpret large and diverse data sets. Major examples of interdisciplinary and integrating research programs in the Earth sciences are the World Climate Research Program of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme organized under the auspices of ICSU, and, nationally, the U.S. Global Change Research Program.10 These are major initiatives, begun in the 1980s to understand the driving mechanisms (both natural and human) that cause significant changes in the Earth system. These efforts involve collecting and analyzing massive data sets from Earth-observing satellites and integrating them with multiple-area or site-specific data all over the Earth, including developing countries. Significant progress in these types of complex

OCR for page 47
--> research programs can be made only if there is effective transnational flow of data and information. Biological Sciences The breadth of the kinds of data in the biological sciences is probably the widest among the four areas described in this report.11 The subjects of the data encompass types and modes of propagation of life forms, modes of provision of food and fiber, conservation of the planet's biota, public health and safety, the molecular bases of life processes, and biotechnology. Data in the biological sciences differ somewhat from those in the physical sciences, have some characteristics in common with the other observational sciences, and have some unique characteristics. Biologists have no fundamental constants or periodic table. They do share with chemists the data specifying structures of molecules, such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectra and x-ray diffraction patterns, as well as the inferred structural parameters themselves. However, many biological data specify ranges of incidence or of values of some properties. Such data require textual descriptions, which become part of the databases. Collections of such data require modes of access that are different from and frequently more complex than those that serve well in the physical sciences. Analysis by computing associations and similarities, rather than by direct, experimental, causal assessment, is characteristic of biology. Concepts are sometimes less well defined in biology than in the physical sciences, and so clarity can be compromised when terms with even slightly different definitions, explicit or implied, are used to classify and describe what should be commonly understood data. Even the concept of ''species" causes problems. For example, there are questions regarding the variabilities found within and between species and regarding whether species should be defined according to DNA sequences, with no distinctions within the species, or according to taxonomy, with differentiations made among subspecies. This issue is elaborated in greater detail below in this chapter. Biologists use some large databases, particularly those of nucleic acid sequences that form the fast-growing genome databases. Efforts to build, maintain, and distribute the information in these databases are highly international and collaborative. Centers around the world collect data from contributing scientists and immediately share them, incorporating them as they accumulate into a coordinated database. In this respect, biologists share certain problems with the observational sciences. Proprietary concerns probably arise at least as frequently in the biological sciences as in the laboratory physical sciences or the Earth sciences, but much more frequently than in the space sciences. A somewhat unique characteristic of many biological data, especially regarding distributions of species, is that they are very location-specific. Consequently, in order to protect fauna or flora in a given location, or the privacy or

OCR for page 47
--> property rights of the people who live there, barriers unrelated to the research itself sometimes arise that inhibit the flow, particularly the international exchange, of biological data. DATA TRENDS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CHALLENGES IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES The increasing use of electronic means for data collection, storage, manipulation, and dissemination is one of a number of broad and interrelated trends that have significant implications for access to data in the natural sciences. These trends include the following: Rapid growth of the body of scientific data; Development of large international research programs; Insufficient funding for data management and preservation activities worldwide; Decentralization of data management and distribution; Electronic publication; and Increasing use of simulations and animations as scientific data. The discussion in this section addresses these broad trends as well as the opportunities and challenges they present. Some disciplineor field-specific issues are discussed in the next section. Rapid Growth of the Body of Scientific Data In every area of the sciences, both the volumes and the types of data have grown at rates unforeseeable 30 years ago. This growth has been especially rapid primarily because of vast improvements in and increasing availability of imaging detector arrays at most wavelength ranges. For example, in the Earth sciences, new technology allows data to be collected repetitively with high spatial resolution. Remote sensing systems are generating immense volumes of data that are pushing the limits of our ability to store, retrieve, and analyze those data. For instance, the introduction of ground-based Doppler radar and new satellite systems is significantly increasing the data volumes within the atmospheric sciences. Table 3.1 shows a selection of land remote sensing data sets and their anticipated volumes that are archived by the Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center operated by the U.S. Geological Survey in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In seismology, new initiatives both in the United States and in other countries have resulted in continuous, broad-band digital recording at high sampling rates. Special studies using up to 1,000 sensors generate very large data sets for each experiment. Table 3.2 illustrates the actual and projected growth in data volumes at the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS) Data

OCR for page 47
--> plines, because the biological materials themselves are repositories for scientific information. For this reason, bioprospecting for new gene pools in tropical countries by commercial and other interests from industrialized nations has become a contentious issue on a global scale.78 For example, Brazil will no longer allow the sampling of biota by non-Brazilians and will not allow export of biota.79 In such cases, the study of these materials is limited to what the country can do with local resources. Data that are produced in this way are sequestered rather than shared with the general scientific community. Other unanticipated problems can arise in this context as well, as Boxes 3.9 and 3.10 illustrate. With regard to in situ data collection efforts in developing countries, the committee recommends the following actions: the ICSU, together with funding agencies and nongovernmental bodies, should strengthen its efforts to assist developing countries in undertaking their own scientific studies and encourage scientists engaged in such studies to take active roles in the international scientific community, where their efforts can be appreciated and used. Legal and procedural protocols must be developed to provide for fair and equitable sharing of any resulting intellectual property. This would not only help create indigenous BOX 3.9 A Hobson's Choice The following example of a trade-off between two unpalatable options was provided by the Consortium for International Earth Sciences Information Network (ClESIN) in response to the committee's "inquiry to Interested Parties": One unexpected experience is in the balancing of data access privileges with the access of researchers to pursue their research in specific countries. Our experience includes an instance where a multi-year program to collect and integrate socioeconomic and environmental data in an African country was successfully completed, the data conveyed to CIESIN for sustaining access, then the government of the subject nation was ousted through a violent and protracted coup. The successor government did not agree with the predecessor government, in terms of allowing open access to those data collected and provided by its agencies to the CIESIN-sponsored researchers. Thus, they wanted to prohibit future release Of data already out of their physical custody. The clear implication was that failure to comply with these newly implemented restrictions would cause further restrictions of follow-on research projects of the type CIESIN initially supported with UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) and others. The trade of between restricting data access and restricting research access for future collection is an unsavory and unforeseen challenge that is likely to recur in that region and elsewhere, as political instability ensues. Future governments may decline to honor the information sharing policies of their country. This dilemma threatens the free and open access of data on a sustaining. basis and raises significant questions about where the locus of ownership of data Is after governments are replaced, peacefully or through violent actions.

OCR for page 47
--> BOX 3.10 Can Data Be Too Accurate? The following is an excerpt from a message that is part of a discussion on the Internet list server, <biodiv-1@bdt.org.br>. This discussion group emphasizes global biodiversity, conservation of habitat and biota, and information regarding these areas. The author of this message is Jeff Waldon. The message illustrates an important but little appreciated aspect of the tension between free dissemination of information, and commercial and nonscientific private interests: The debate is whether release or restriction of sensitive locational information is the best thing for conservation. There are cases of collectors using such information to decimate rare and endangered species at a site (e.g., the recent arrest of butterfly poachers that targeted National Parks in the western United States). On the other hand there are other examples of species protection because the landowner was informed of the existence of a rare animal or plant. I have been involved in the development of information systems for about 10 years, and I have heard both sides argued strenuously. My personal feeling is that the "boogie man" collector is real, but in most cases we overreact to his presence. We are losing many more populations of threatened and endangered species because of ignorance rather than malice. We have developed a compromise in our systems whereby we release sensitive information on species, but the locational data accuracy is reduced to help reduce the likelihood that a collector might successfully collect at that site. If a development project for the pubic is reviewed, and more accurate information is required, that information is provided at the, discretion of the biologist working with the requester. I come from the academic school of thought that relies on the free interchange of information, and this compromise strikes me as still too restrictive at times. On the other hand, government employees are bound by laws and policies that make them accountable for their actions Including the consequences of releasing information on the location of threat , and endangered species, and I see their dilemma. SOURCE: Jeff Waldon, personal communication, 1995, used with permission. data resources and promote a greater interest within nations of the developing world in obtaining a more thorough understanding of their own resources, but also lead to more fruitful international cooperative research. RECOMMENDATIONS ON DATA ISSUES IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES The recommendations set forth below are addressed to all individuals and organizations with responsibilities for managing scientific data acquired with public funds. Governmental science agencies and intergovernmental organizations

OCR for page 47
--> should adopt as a fundamental operating principle the full and open exchange of scientific data. By "full and open exchange" the committee means that the data and information derived from publicly funded research are made available with as few restrictions as possible, on a nondiscriminatory basis, for no more than the cost of reproduction and distribution. The International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), together with the scientific Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Megascience Forum, and the national science agencies and professional societies of member countries, should consider developing a distributed international network of data centers. Such a network should draw on the strengths of successful examples of international data exchange activities as described in Appendix C of this report, including, in particular, the ICSU World Data Centers, and become a prominent part of the global information infrastructure that has been proposed by the "Group of Seven" nations. To facilitate the international dissemination and interdisciplinary use of scientific data, all public scientific data activities, including the network of data centers, should plan for and commit to providing the human and financial resources sufficient for carrying out the following functions: Involve experts from the relevant disciplines, together with information resource managers and technical specialists, in the active management and preservation of the data; Develop and maintain up-to-date, comprehensive, on-line directories of data sources and protocols for access; Provide documentation (metadata) adequate to ensure that each data set can be properly used and understood, with special attention given to making the data usable by individuals outside the core discipline area. This problem is particularly acute within the biological sciences, in which imprecision and variations in taxonomic definitions and nomenclature pose significant barriers to communication, even among the biological subdisciplines. The committee suggests that the CODATA Commission on Standardized Terminology for Access to Biological Data Banks be enhanced into a true international consultative body and that similar mechanisms be developed for other disciplines, as needed; Incorporate advances in technology to facilitate access to and use of scientific data, while overcoming incompatibilities in formats, media, and other technical attributes through vigorous coordination and standardization efforts; Institute effective programs of quality control and peer review of data sets; and Digitize all key historical data sets and ensure that every important condition for the long-term retention of data be met, including the adoption

OCR for page 47
--> of appropriate retention and purging criteria and the timely transfer of all data sets to new media to prevent their deterioration or obsolescence. The ICSU and other professional scientific societies should encourage the study of, and publication of peer-reviewed papers on, effective data management and preservation practices, as well as promote the teaching of those practices in all institutions of higher learning. All scientists conducting publicly funded research should make their data available immediately, or following a reasonable period of time for proprietary use. The maximum length of any proprietary period should be expressly established by the particular scientific communities, and compliance should be monitored subsequently by the funding agency. As a corollary to recommendation 2.a above, publicly funded scientific databases should be maintained either directly or under subcontract by the government science agencies with the requisite discipline mission and need. In the United States, the Office of Science and Technology Policy should develop an overall policy for the long-term retention of scientific data, including a contingency plan for protecting those data that may become threatened with the loss of their institutional home.80 With regard to improving access to scientific data in developing countries, the committee makes the following recommendations: International development organizations, together with professional societies, should provide targeted training programs for scientists in the use of computers, with emphasis on the management of digital data in specific disciplines. Foreign aid agencies should (i) make available to individual scientists in developing countries more direct, peer-reviewed grants that include support for access to data, and (ii) facilitate the involvement of scientists in such nations in their own countries' capacity-building initiatives, research policy decisions, and national database construction efforts. Scientists in developing countries should be encouraged to organize to promote the policy of full and open access to scientific data in their own countries, as well as to make their data available internationally. The ICSU, together with funding agencies and nongovernmental bodies, should strengthen its efforts to assist developing countries in undertaking their own scientific studies and encourage scientists engaged in such studies to take active roles in the international scientific community, where their efforts can be appreciated and used. Legal and procedural protocols must be developed to provide for fair and equitable sharing of any resulting intellectual property.

OCR for page 47
--> Until affordable and ubiquitous electronic network services are available, national and international scientific societies and foreign aid agencies should establish or improve their existing efforts to send extra stocks of scientific publications to libraries and research institutions in developing countries that need them. Finally, the ICSU, together with the principal national and international scientific organizations mentioned in Recommendation 2 above, should convene a series of major international meetings to initiate meaningful action on these recommendations. NOTES 1.   Privacy issues, which become especially important in the social sciences and clinical research, were judged to be of only tertiary concern in the context of most of the disciplines examined in this study, and thus are not addressed in any detail in this report. 2.   In some areas of the experimental sciences, it is standard practice for researchers to publish general results, such as structures of protein molecules, but retain details, such as precise coordinates of the atoms, for some limited period of time, during which they may pursue the implications of their own measurements. In many instances, particularly in the observational sciences, principal investigators are allowed to keep data sets proprietary for some specified period of time in order to be able to analyze them and publish their results first. This issue is discussed below in this chapter. 3.   National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data on Our Physical Universe: A New Strategy for Archiving the Nation's Scientific Information Resources, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 4.   Cosmic-ray research is an exception here. While it is based largely on observations rather than experiments, it has been classified traditionally in physics, rather than astronomy or space science. It overlaps all of these, of course. 5.   For a more detailed discussion of the differences between experimental and observational data, see National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3. 6.   For a comprehensive listing of most internationally available data sets from space missions, see the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's National Space Science Data Center home page at <http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/>. 7.   For a broad listing of international WWW servers covering all aspects of Earth science data and information, see the NASA Global Change Master Directory at <http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgibin/pointers/>; see also <http://gds.esrin.esa.it:80/>. 8.   A. Maddison (1995), Monitoring the World Economy: 1820-1992, OECD, Paris, 255 pp. 9.   T.F. Malone (1995), "Reflections on the Human Prospect," in Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (R.H. Socolow, ed.) 20:1-29, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, California. 10.   See <http://www.usgcrp.gov> for additional information on the U.S. Global Change Research Program and related data activities, and <http://www.igbp.kva.se/index.html> for information on the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. 11.   See the WWW Virtual Library for a comprehensive index of biological data and information at <http://golgi.harvard.edu/biopages>. See also a listing of sources of international biological information on the Internet on the Web site of the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division at <http://www.its.nbs.gov/nbii/iao/ibii.html>; and the Biotechnology Indus-

OCR for page 47
-->     try Organization's compilation of biotechnology databases at <http://www.bio.org/educ/dbasef.html>. 12.   See, for example, National Research Council (1996), Statistical Challenges and Possible Approaches in the Analysis of Massive Data Sets, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 13.   Genevieve J. Knezo, (1994), ''Major Science and Technology Programs: Megaprojects and Presidential Initiatives, Trends Through the FY 1995 Request," Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C., March 29, p. 1. 14.   Congressional Budget Office, July (1991), "Large Non-Defense R&D Projects in the Budget: 1980-1986," CBO, Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, more recent statistics are not available. 15.   For a detailed review of the various large international research projects and programs currently under way, see Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, OECD Megascience Forum (1993), Megascience and Its Background, Paris. See also the OECD Megascience Forum Web site at <http://www.oecd.org/dsti/mega/>. 16.   15 United States Code, Section 5652 (1992). 17.   See General Accounting Office (1990), Environmental Data-Major Effort Is Needed to Improve NOAA's Data Management and Archiving, Washington, D.C.; and General Accounting Office (1990), Space Operations-NASA Is Not Archiving All Potentially Valuable Data, Washington, D.C. It should be noted that both agencies have taken significant measures to rectify these past problems. 18.   National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3. 19.   National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3, at pp. 47-48. 20.   See Gary Taubes, (1996), "Science Journals Go Wired," Science 271(February 9):764; and UNESCO Expert Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science (1996), ICSU Press at <http://www.lmcp.jussieu.fr/-fabrice/icsu/information/index.html>. See also, Steve Hitchcock, Leslie Carr, and Wendy Hall, "A Survey of STM On-line Journals 1990-95: The Calm Before the Storm," at <http://journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/survey/survey.html>. 21.   <http://www.aip.org:80/>. 22.   <http://www.iop.org/>. 23.   See <http://eij.gsfc.nasa.gov>. 24.   See, for example, the NASA-funded Astrophysics Data System Abstract Service at <http://adswww.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html>. 25.   See Richard T. Kouzes, James D. Myers, and William A. Wulf (1996), "Collaboratories: Doing Science on the Internet," IEEE Computer 29(8):40-46. 26.   For additional insights in this area, see the Proceedings of the '96 UNESCO Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science, held at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, February 19-23, 1996. A summary of the results from that conference was presented by D.F. Shaw (1996), "Electronic Publishing in Science," Science International, ICSU Paris, May, pp. 1-3. 27.   See Nahum Gershon and Judith R. Brown (1996), "Computer Graphics and Visualization in the Global Information Infrastructure," a Special Report in IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, March, pp. 60-75; and Robert Braham (1995), "Math & Visualization: New Tools, New Frontiers," a Focus Report in IEEE Spectrum, November, pp. 19-65. 28.   Canadian Global Change Program (1996), "Data Policy and Barriers to Data Access in Canada: Issues for Global Change Research," The Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa. National Research Council (1993), 1992 Review of the World Data Center A for Rockets and Satellites, National Space Science Data Center, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1992), Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Academy of Public Administration (1991), The Archives of the Future: Archival Strategies for the Treatment of Electronic Databases, A report for the National Archives and Records Administration; General Accounting Office (1990), Environmental Data-Major Effort Is Needed to Improve NOAA's Data Management and Archiving,

OCR for page 47
-->     Washington, D.C.; General Accounting Office (1990), Space Operations—NASA Is Not Archiving All Potentially Valuable Data, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1990), Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1988), Geophysical Data: Policy Issues, Committee on Geophysical Data,, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1988), Selected Issues in Space Science Data Management and Computation, Space Science Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1986), Atmospheric Climate Data: Problems and Promises, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1986), Issues and Recommendations Associated with Distributed Computation and Data Management Systems for the Space Sciences, Space Science Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; J.K. Haas, H.W. Samuels, and B.T. Simmons (1985), Appraising the Records of Modern Science and Technology: A Guide, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.; National Research Council (1984), Solar-Terrestrial Data Access, Distribution and Archiving, Space Science Board and Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1982), Selected Issues in Space Science Data Management and Computation, Space Science Board, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 29.   Committee on the Future of Long-term Ecological Data (FLED), (1995), Final Report of the Ecological Society of America, Katherine L. Gross, Chair, Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1993), A Biological Survey for the Nation, Committee on the Formation of the National Biological Survey, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 30.   National Research Council (1986), Toward a Geosphere-Biosphere Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1988), Toward an Understanding of Global Change: Initial Priorities for U.S. Contributions to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; and National Research Council (1990), Research Strategies for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 31.   Additional information on the Global Climate Observing System can be found at the World Meteorological Organizations's Web site at <http://www.wmo.ch/web/gcos/gcoshome.html>; and see <http://www.wmo.ch/web/www/www.html> for the World Weather Watch, and <http://www.wmo.chlweb/arep/gaw.html> for the Global Weather Watch. See <http://www.unesco.org/ioc/goos/iocgoos.html> for the Global Ocean Observing System and <http://www.wsl.ch/ wsidb/gtos/gtos.html> for the Global Terrestrial Observing System. 32.   See the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center's Web site at <http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/cdiac>. 33.   For extensive discussion of data quality control and assurance procedures and recommendations in the context of interdisciplinary environmental research, see National Research Council (1995), Finding the Forest in the Trees: The Challenge of Combining Diverse Environmental Data, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 34.   For a general overview of issues and requirements in archiving digital data and information, see Task Force on Archiving of Digital Information (1995), Preserving Digital Information, the Commission on Preservation and Access and the Research Libraries Group, Inc., at<http://lyra.rlg.org./ArchTF/>. 35.   See, for example, Committee on the Future of Long-term Ecological Data (FLED), (1995), Final Report of the Ecological Society of America, Katherine L. Gross, Chair, Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C. 36.   National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3. 37.   National Research Council (1994), Facing the Challenge: The U.S. National Report to the IDNDR World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, May 23-27, 1994,

OCR for page 47
-->     U.S. National Committee for the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; National Research Council (1991), A Safer Future: Reducing the Impacts of Natural Disasters, U.S. National Committee for the Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 38.   National Research Council (1995), Finding the Forest in the Trees, note 33. 39.   See, generally, National Research Council (1992), Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 40.   Secondary users, such as researchers in other fields, policymakers, educators, and the general public, do not collect and create data sets, but they perform tasks with, analyze, and interpret the data. For a discussion of distinctions between user categories, see National Research Council ( 1995), Study on the Long-term Retention of Selected Scientific and Technical Records of the Federal Government-Working Papers, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 41.   See National Research Council (1995), Finding the Forest in the Trees, note 33, and Preserving Scientific Data, note 3. For general information on metadata issues, see the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Metadata and Data Management information page at <http://www.llnl.gov/liv_comp/metadata/metadata.html>. 42.   For more information regarding IGBP-DIS data activities, see <http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr:8000/igbp/outline.html>. Additional information is provided in the "Summary Report on the 7th IGBP-DIS Scientific Steering Committee Meeting Manual" (1996) at <http://www.cnrm.meteo.fr:8000/igbp/meetingssummary_repsscfeb96_verhtml.html>. See also the NASA Global Change Master Directory for another example of a successful on-line indexing effort at <http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-Bin/pointers/>. 43.   Michael Carlowicz (1997), "New Data from Cold War Treasure Trove," EOS, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 78, no. 9, March 4, p. 93. 44.   See "Corona: America's First Satellite Program" (1995), Kevin C. Ruffner, ed., Central Intelligence Agency History Staff Center for the Study of Intelligence, Washington, D.C.; and Robert A. McDonald (1995), "Opening the Cold War Sky to the Public: Declassifying Satellite Reconnaissance Imagery," Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, pp. 385-390. For a listing of declassified satellite data products, including information about missions, dates, and resolution, see the United States Geological Survey's EROS Data Center Web site at <http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/disp>. 45.   See William J. Broad (1996), "Anti-Sub Seabed Grid Thrown Open to Eavesdropping," New York Times, July 2, p. CI. 46.   See National Research Council (1988), Ozone Depletion, Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change: Proceedings of a Joint Symposium by the Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Committee on Global Change, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 47.   National Research Council (1995), On the Full and Open Exchange of Scientific Data, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. The appendix to the report also presents a collection of other similar supporting policy statements. 48.   See Information Infrastructure Task Force (1994), The Global Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation, Washington, D.C., at <http://www.iitf.nist.gov/documents/docs/gii/giiagend.html>. 49.   J.R.G. Townshend, C. Justice, W. Li, C. Gurney, and J. McManus (1991), "Global Land Cover Classification by Remote Sensing: Present Capabilities and Future Possibilities," Remote Sensing and the Environment 35:243-355. 50.   See T.R. Loveland, J.W. Merchant, D.O. Ohlen, and J.F. Brown (1991), "Development of a Land Cover Characteristics Database for the Conterminous U.S.," Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57:1453-1463. 51.   These points have been discussed in some detail for the field of materials databases, where the high volume and critical importance of metadata, the broad scope of the materials field, the rich

OCR for page 47
-->     vocabulary of materials technology, and the international character of materials information give special importance to the subjects. See J.H. Westbrook and W. Grattidge (1992), "Terminological Standards for Materials Databases," in Computerization and Networking of Materials Databases, Vol. 3, T.J. Barry and K.W. Reynard, eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 15-33. 52.   D.L. Hawksworth, B.C. Sutton, and G.C. Ainsworth (1983), Dictionary of the Fungi (including the Lichens), seventh edition, Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew, Surrey, England. 53.   College of American Pathologists, Committee on Nomenclature and Classification of Disease (1965), Systematized Nomenclature of Pathology, first edition, American Cancer Society and American Medical Association, Chicago. 54.   A reference with numerous examples from the field of chemistry is J.H. Westbrook (1993), "Problems in the Computerization of Chemical Information: Capture of Tabular and Graphical Data," Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences 33:6-17. 55.   See <http://www.nist.gov/srd/>. 56.   See the recommendations in National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3. 57.   For example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science sponsors the Project for African Research Libraries in partnership with U.S. scientific societies to provide subscriptions for core scientific and technical journals in 35 sub-Saharan African countries (see <http://www.aaas.org/international/ssa-l.htm> for general information on international programs). For UNESCO's programs on the advancement, transfer, and sharing of knowledge in the natural sciences, see also <http://www.unesco.org/ch-intern/programmes/science/highlights.html>. 58.   These statistics vary over time and according to country and discipline, and are available for only a few major countries. See Science & Engineering Indicators (1996), National Science Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 2-28 to 2-30. The statistics indicate that 35 to 75 percent of foreign graduate students surveyed intend to stay in the United States upon completion of their studies. 59.   For an overview of potential educational activities to improve the management of scientific and engineering data, see National Research Council (1986), Improving the Treatment of Scientific and Engineering Data Through Education, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 60.   This is not an exhaustive list of organizations that provide assistance to scientists in developing countries. Several organizations, such as the International Development Research Centre Library, provide extensive links to Internet sites related to international development (see <http://www.irdc.ca/library/world/world.html>). 61.   USAID focuses on regional activities, such as the African Data Dissemination Service (ADDS), which is conducted in conjunction with several private organizations, the Office of Arid Land Studies at the University of Arizona, NASA, and NOAA. An example of an ADDS project is the Famine Early Warning System, which, with the help of the USGS EROS Data Center, provides information about potential famine situations to allow for proactive initiatives to prevent famine (see <http://edcsnw4.cr.usgs.gov/adds/general/> for additional information on ADDS). Other USAID activities, such as AfricaLink and the Leland Initiative, provide network connections and information management to Africa (see <http://www.info.usaid.gov/regions/afr/> for a description of these and other regional programs in Africa). The USAID sponsored U.S.-Russian NGO Cooperation Project provides small grants and equipment for individuals and institutions to link to an environmental e-mail network in Central Asia and the West Newly Independent States (see <gopher://gaia.info.usaid.gov:70/00...enis_reg/nis. factsheet/enviro3.txt>). 62.   For example, the NASA Pathfinder project uses Landsat images to determine forest land cover and change for three quarters of the world. The USDA Foreign Agriculture Service provides support to the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) through the prediction of global production of major grains. For additional information on both programs, see the Proceedings of a Workshop on the Use of Remote Sensing Technologies and GIS

OCR for page 47
-->     Database in CGIAR Centers (1995), Environment and National Resources Information Center (see <http://www.info.usaid.gov/environment/enric/special/cgiar.htm>). 63.   See <http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/envir.html>. 64.   See <http://www.unsystem.org> for the official listing of the United Nations system of organizations' Internet servers. Numerous initiatives within the U.N. programs and specialized agencies directly assist scientists in developing countries through a variety of mechanisms. One example is the Sustainable Development Network Programme of the UNDP, which links government organizations, the private sector, universities, NGOs, and individuals in developing countries through electronic networks for the purpose of exchanging information on sustainable development (see <http://www3.undp.org>). Refer to the programs' and agencies' home pages for further details on other U.N. initiatives. 65.   For example, the OAS RedHUCyT program is a hemisphere-wide interuniversity scientific and technological information network created in 1991 with the objective to connect OAS member countries to the Internet, "integrating an electronic network for the exchange of scientific and technological information among professors, researchers, and specialists, at different universities in the member states" (for additional information, see <http://www.oas.orglEN/PROG/RED/covere.htm>). OAS also sponsors a regional scientific and technological development program, which carries out a number of multinational and national projects that provide member states "with an opportunity to share experiences, to provide . . . mutual support and to engage in joint activities to further the advancement of science and technology and to promote integral development" (see <http://www.oas.org/EN/PROG/pa26e.htm>). 66.   See the Institute for Baltic Studies' Web site at <http://www.ibs.ee/dollar/fw4/wp/dev.html>. 67.   <http://gds.esrin.esa.it:80/559DE416/TOxclcce622_0x00029290>. 68.   The Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) was founded in 1983 to support scientific research in developing countries through provision of research grants, spare parts for scientific equipment, books and journals, and fellowships. See <http://www.ictp.trieste.it/TWAS.html/> for a description of TWAS activities and programs. The organization not only is closely coupled with the U.N., but also collaborates with the International Council of Scientific Unions (see next note). 69.   The International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) was founded in 1933 to "bring together natural scientists in international scientific endeavor." ICSU works closely with UNESCO, WMO, FAO, and UNEP through formal or ad hoc collaborations (see <http://www.lmcp.jussieu.fr/-fabrice/icsu/> for additional information on ICSU). ICSU's Committee on Science and Technology in Developing Countries (COSTED) was created in 1966 to stimulate international scientific and technological cooperation in developing countries. It is a joint initiative co-sponsored by UNESCO and was merged with the International Biosciences Network, an activity with similar objectives, in 1994. For additional information on COSTED and its activities, see G. Thyagara (1995), "Cooperative Research for Development Is COSTED's Aim," The Hindu On-line (<http://www.webpage.com/hindu/960113/22/0820a.html>). ICSU also works to assist scientists in developing countries through its scientific unions and interdisciplinary committees; for example, CODATA recently established the Task Group on Outreach, Education, and Communication, which promotes collaboration, scientific information exchange, and technology transfer for individual scientists and technologists in developing nations. 70.   Founded in 1972, the International Foundation for Science (IFS) provides support (in the form of research grants, equipment, regional workshops and training courses, and travel grants) to young scientists in developing countries in the following research areas: aquatic resources, animal production, crop science, forestry/agroforestry, food science, and natural products. See <http://ifs.plants.ox.ac.uk/ifs/> for additional information about IFS activities and programs. 71.   See <http://www/ciesin.org> for additional information about CIESIN's programs and services.

OCR for page 47
--> 72.   See <http://www.std.com/sabre/SAP/sap.info.html> for additional information on the Sabre Foundation. 73.   See <http://www.isf.ru/index-isf.html> for additional information about the International Science Foundation and its various programs that assist scientists, such as its Library Assistance Program and the Telecommunications Program. 74.   See <http://info.irex.org> for additional information about IREX programs. 75.   See <http://vita.org>. 76.   See American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science and Technology in the Americas: Perspectives on Pan American Collaboration (1994), 2nd ed., E. Jeffrey Stann, ed., AAAS, Washington, D.C. 77.   See James M. Musser (1996), "Molecular Population Genetic Analysis of Emerged Bacterial Pathogens: Selected Insights," EID, 2(1), January-March. 78.   See Biodiversity Prospecting: Using Genetic Resources for Sustainable Development (1993), Reid et al., World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 350 pp.; and "Bioprospecting/Biopiracy and Indigenous Peoples" (1994) RAFI Communique, Nov./Dec. 79.   Personal communication from a member of the staff of the Brazilian Embassy, Washington, D.C., 1995. 80.   See the recommendations in National Research Council (1995), Preserving Scientific Data, note 3.