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 17
2 The Role of Major Oceanographic Programs The H.M.S. Challenger expedition can be considered the first major oceanographic program, as it was the first large-scale and interdisciplinary effort to make a systematic series of oceanographic measurements. The Challenger expedition took place from 1872 to 1876 in an effort to investigate "everything about the sea." It involved a series of physical, chemical, biological, and geological measurements in all the oceans except the Arctic. The German navy's Meteor expedition (1925-27) is often described as one of the first modern oceanographic research cruises. The Meteor , with its complement of 123 officers, scientists, and crew, traversed the southern Atlantic 13 times while executing a complex scientific plan developed by the German oceanographer Alfred Merz.1 In addition to 67,400 soundings and detailed current, salinity, temperature, and oxygen measurements collected at 310 stations, the Meteor conducted plankton tows, collected a large number of bottom samples, and executed systematic atmospheric (using both instrument balloons and kites) and geologic studies (Emery, 1985). The expedition visited numerous exotic ports of call and captured the imagination of people around the world. The worldwide economic depressions of the late 1920s and 1930s dampened support for a large number of expeditions. The global struggle of World War II, however, provided a tremendous need for oceanographic data.2 This need continued 1 In a somewhat ironic, and possibly prophetic, twist of fate, Merz's original plan to conduct a major exploration of the Pacific had to be abandoned as the post-World War I German economy could not support the more ambitious expedition. Thus, Merz and the Meteor were confined to the southern Atlantic (Emery, 1985). 2 For example, at its peak in 1944 the U.S. Navy's Hydrographic Office—a predecessor of today's Naval Oceanographic Office—issued 43 million charts in a single year (Nelson, 1990).
OCR for page 18
into the Cold War when many navies around the world conducted a number of oceanographic studies. However, the desire to place greater emphasis on civilian control and applications of science began to change the face of oceanography. The creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 punctuated this transition and provided an important new source of funding for nonmilitary, ocean-related research. A significant step in the direction of international cooperation on large-scale oceanographic projects was taken when the International Geophysical Year (IGY) was organized in 1957-58. Observations collected during IGY resulted in a number of breakthroughs, including the generation of concepts now recognized as plate tectonics. The validity of this theory was later tested by drilling into the ocean floor under the Deep-Sea Drilling Program (DSDP), a progenitor of ODP. This trend toward international cooperation in oceanographic projects culminated in the establishment in 1969 of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE). IDOE was a large-scale, cooperative research effort designed to increase scientific knowledge and enhance the world's ability to effectively and efficiently use marine resources (NSF, 1982; NAS 1969; NRC, 1979). The International Decade Of Ocean Exploration Designation of the 1970s as the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (NSF, 1982; NRC, 1979) grew out of an increased awareness of the importance of the ocean and its resources. IDOE was developed as a systematic program of ocean exploration and was motivated both by anticipated uses of marine resources and by scientific curiosity. Questions about the health of the ocean lead scientists to argue for baseline surveys requiring a coverage not achievable from randomly spaced observations (NSF, 1982). The program reflected the view that exploration of the ocean needed a sustained global effort. IDOE was started as a separate office in NSF's Division of National and International Programs (Lambert, in press). A National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/National Academy of Engineering (NAE) workshop was held in 1968 at Woods Hole to identify programs that could contribute to enhancing use of the ocean and thereby be worthy of development. A steering committee was formed to develop and refine the criteria for the proposed programs (NAS, 1969). As the result of a presidential initiative, money was added to NSF's budget in 1971 (Fig. 2-1a and b) to support IDOE (NAS, 1969; NRC, 1979; NSF, 1982). Initially, IDOE was separate from the research program that contained ocean and earth sciences (when NSF was reorganized in 1975, IDOE, the oceanography section, and the oceanographic facilities and support section were combined to form the Ocean Sciences Division of NSF). A working group was established at NSF that consisted of program managers and members of the research community. The section director for IDOE throughout most of this period was Feenan Jennings. The IDOE working group, under Jennings' leadership, set the ground rules for
OCR for page 19
Figure 2-1a Impact (in current dollars) of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE) on ocean science funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Data provided by Division of Ocean Science (OCE) of NSF (Appendix F). NOTE: Prior to 1983, funds for the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) were separate from OCE. However, in order to make it comparable to the data for 1984-1997, the budget data for OCE from 1970-1983 shown here includes ODP funding. IDOE funding one of which was that the projects had to be multi-institutional initiatives. Although the working group did not try to promote specific science goals, they did encourage projects that fell into four categories (1) environmental quality, (2) living resources, (3) seabed, assessment, and (4) environmental forecasting. GEOSECS (Geochemical Ocean Sections) was a cooperative program for the application of geochemical and hydrographic measurements to the study of ocean circulation and mixing processes. The program consisted mainly of a series of large-scale expeditions in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. MANOP (Manganese Nodule Project), initially conceived of as a study of the factors controlling the composition of manganese nodules, grew into a broader study of the fluxes across the sediment water interface. Other IDOE programs examined coastal upwelling (e.g., the Coastal Upwelling and Ecosystem Analysis [CUEA], environmental forecasting (e.g., the North Pacific Experiment [NORPAX], and Climate: Long-Range Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction [CLIMAP]), and many other significant components of ocean systems (NSF, 1982).
OCR for page 20
Figure 2-1b Impact (in constant 1997 dollars) of the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE) on ocean science funding at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Data provided by Division of Ocean Science (OCE) of NSF (Appendix F). NOTE: Prior to 1983, funds for the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) were separate from OCE. However, in order to make it comparable to the data for 1984-1997, the budget data for OCE from 1970-1983 is inclusive of ODP funding. Constant 1997 dollars calculated using the Consumer Price Indices from http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/calc/hist1913.html, 04/24/98; 1997 price=Year X price (1997 price/Year X price). Regardless of the success of any of its individual programs, IDOE had a demonstrable impact on the way ocean science research was funded. In addition to establishing a model for initiating large programs. IDOE brought about real changes in funding levels for ocean science. At the end of IDOE, the National Science Board and NSF decided not to continue IDOE as a unit. One reason given for discontinuing IDOE as a separate unit was the overlap between its four structures, and the four discipline programs within the oceanography section. Thus, IDOE was not a cohesive interdisciplinary unit for multi-investigator projects and created some redundancy. Although it was discontinued, the overall funding level for ocean science reached during IDOE (including budgets for both IDOE and OCE) was maintained at the end of the program. This resulted in the funds being directed into the core discipline programs of OCE (Figs. 2-1a and b). IDOE did more than just change the way NSF funded oceanographic research. IDOE projects were larger, more complex, longer term, and supported scientists from several disciplines and institutions. Although NSF was the lead
OCR for page 21
agency, IDOE also involved multi-agency sponsorship of projects. The long-term project support provided by IDOE permitted detailed planning and encouraged the development of new instruments and data collection protocols. For example, GEOSECS provided the first modern global description of ocean geochemistry. As a result of the IDOE programs, understanding of the ocean became more quantitative and less descriptive. Although the recommendation for systematic ocean monitoring was not fully achieved, archiving and data exchange were vastly improved (NSF, 1982; NRC, 1979). IDOE set the stage for logical follow-up activities, some of which are ongoing today (see Box 1-2). Many of the present group of major ocean programs grew out of ideas or themes that emerged during the IDOE. For example, GEOSECS influenced the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) and World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE); North Pacific Experiment (NORPAX) was the precursor of the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere (TOGA) program; the Coastal Upwelling and Ecosystems Analysis (CUEA) contributed to the development of Coastal Ocean Processes (CoOP); the French-American Undersea Study (FAMOUS) led, in part, to Ridge Inter-Disciplinary Global Experiments (RIDGE); and the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment (MODE), POLYMODE (eddies), and the International Southern Ocean Studies (ISOS) set the stage for WOCE. The Growth Of Major Oceanographic Programs IDOE set a pattern for the organization and funding of large oceanographic research efforts. In the early 1980s, when it became possible to contemplate large-scale, even global, programs to collect synoptic 3 ocean observations, many of the lessons learned during IDOE were used to shape new research initiatives. Concurrently, growing awareness that anthropogenic activity was reaching a point where it would influence earth systems (such as climate) created the impetus to fund large-scale, ocean exploration programs. The emerging desire for global, synoptic observations and concern about global change gave rise to national and international efforts to understand the relationship between the oceans and climate. One of the first programs to be established was WOCE. It was soon joined by the JGOFS, and a new era of major oceanographic research programs at NSF/OCE began. Value for Decision Making Funding for many of the major oceanographic programs is provided by a number of federal mission agencies as well as NSF/OCE (for example, see Fig. 1-1). The 3 Synoptic refers to observations taken in various places over a wide region at or near the same time. Since this is extremely difficult to achieve using conventional surface ships, many in situ measurements taken at sea from ships as part of a systematic observation effort to obtain synoptic measurements are referred to as quasi-synoptic observations.
OCR for page 22
broad funding support and congressional interest that many of these programs have experienced reflects, in part, their perceived value for national or international policy-making. The importance of these questions to policymakers is evident in the increased funds provided by Congress either directly to basic ocean research through grants provided by the NSF or through financial support or cooperative efforts involving a number of agencies. Boxes 2-1 through 2-4 provide specific examples of how major programs support the diverse missions of the federal agencies who sponsor them. Although there were instances where the significance of the studies for policy-making rather than their intrinsic scientific value may have led to the increased availability of funds and facilities, it is impossible to determine exactly how much of major program funding has originated as a unique response to interest from policymakers. However, it is reasonable to assume that the clearly articulated goals and themes of large initiatives provide credible arguments for NSF/OCE and other agency administrators when requesting additional funds to support relevant research in the ocean sciences. Ocean Sciences At Nsf NSF/OCE plays a dominant role in funding basic ocean research and in the majority of ongoing major ocean programs. Consequently, the sponsors of the study and the committee agreed to focus on NSF/OCE involvement in the programs. The NSF/OCE consists of two sections: the Oceanographic Centers and Facilities Section (OCFS) and the Ocean Sciences Research Section (OSRS)4 OCFS supports operation, acquisition, construction, and conversion of major shared-use oceanographic facilities needed to carry out oceanographic research programs. Within OCFS is the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP), which provides for the operation and maintenance of the ocean drilling ship JOIDES Resolution, and provides funds to conduct research related to drilling programs. The Ship Operations Program funds operation and maintenance of research vessels and submersibles used by NSF-funded scientists. OSRS programs fund projects dealing with disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies of biological, geological, physical, and chemical processes in the ocean and ocean technology. Thus, individual research proposals, whether submitted by scientists participating in a major oceanographic program or not, are reviewed and (if warranted) funded through OSRS programs. The OSRS core programs include the four basic ocean science disciplines. Marine Geology and Geophysics supports research on all aspects of geology and geophysics of the ocean basins and margins. Chemical Oceanography supports research on the composition and chemical properties of seawater and the chemical processes related to the biology and geology of the marine environment. 4 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97134/nsf97134.htm, June 2, 1998
OCR for page 23
Box 2-1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Major Oceanographic Research Programs (Provided by Eric Lindstrom, NASA) NASA's Mission One of NASA's missions is to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the universe and use the environment of space for research. A fundamental question posed in relation to this mission is how can we use the knowledge of the Sun, Earth, and other planetary bodies to develop predictive environmental, climate, natural disaster, and natural resource models to help ensure sustainable development and improve the quality of life on Earth? The NASA Role One strategic enterprise of NASA, Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), is focused on characterization of the Earth system with data, models, and analysis. Through MTPE NASA is a central player in the U.S. Global Change Research Program and makes major contributions to WOCE, TOGA, and JGOFS. NASA has provided remotely sensed data, modeling capabilities, and scientific analysis for WOCE and JGOFS. The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite radar altimetry mission (1992-present) has provided a time series of global sea level estimates critical to WOCE. Analysis of ocean color from space and the recent (1997) acquisition of ocean color data from the SeaWiFS satellite are major contributions to JGOFS. NASA fielded an extensive airborne and in situ experiment in support of TOGA's Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Response Experiment (COARE) and NASA's Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission. Value of Program Results to NASA Scientific results from NASA's contribution to major oceanographic programs provide one of the many justifications for maintaining MTPE and a strong, long-term capability for remote sensing of the Earth's environment. TOPEX/Poseidon results provide critical spatial and temporal context for analysis of the world ocean circulation. The impact of such measurements can be seen in a practical way in their ability to characterize and communicate the magnitude and evolution of the 1997-98 El Niño event in the Pacific Ocean. Future Role of Major Oceanographic Programs NASA's MTPE is involved in global-scale measurements and analysis of the major processes involved in global change. Ocean research programs scaled to address global issues and analyses must engage the capabilities of MTPE. MTPE addresses challenges involving observation of the global environment, interdisciplinary study and modeling of the earth system, and technology development for the next generation of global remote sensing.
OCR for page 24
Box 2-2 The Office of Naval Research and Major Oceanographic Research Programs (Provided by Melbourne Briscoe, ONR) ONR's Mission ONR's mission is to support long-range research, foster discovery, nurture future generations of researchers, produce new technologies that meet known naval requirements, and provide order-of-magnitude innovations in fields relevant to the future Navy and Marine Corps. Primary emphasis is the ''navy after next," meaning most science and technology (S&T) investments are aimed at a 3-5 year minimum horizon, with 10-20 years not being unusual and even 20-30 years being possible. ONR Involvement in Major Oceanographic Programs In ocean sciences the main programmatic areas in ONR are physical oceanography; biological/chemical oceanography; marine geology and geophysics; environmental optics; high latitude dynamics; marine meteorology and atmospheric effects; ocean modeling and prediction; coastal dynamics; ocean acoustics; ocean engineering and marine systems; remote sensing and space; undersea signal processing; sensors, sources, and arrays; tactical sensing support; sensing-information dominance; and research facilities (especially ships). Outside ONR there has been, or now is, involvement with essentially all the major oceanographic programs since the early days of IDOE. ONR support for the major oceanographic programs falls into four main categories: (1) precursor program support, meaning financial support of investigators, instrumentation development, and workshops that ultimately leads to the formation of a major oceanographic program or to the technical capability to implement one; (2) direct performance support, meaning financial support of investigators (or infrastructure, like steering committees) either directly or through the major oceanographic program processes/agencies; (3) collateral performance support, meaning financial support of investigators or infrastructure but for related science and technology that is not specifically part of the science plans of the major oceanographic program; and (4) post-program support, meaning financial support of investigators or infrastructure addressing problems, synthesis, wrap-up, and extensions that is designed to exploit maximum value from the program (after a major oceanographic program is officially over), and/or to move an S&T topic into some area of applied interest to our naval forces. Value of Program Results to ONR ONR supports the breadth of ocean science, with some emphasis on ocean acoustics and ocean predictability, including observations and the tools to do them. The major oceanographic programs (and their smaller brethren; see below) are good vehicles to enable interdisciplinary work, focus on specific problems, develop new observing technologies, and acquire meaningful data sets.
OCR for page 25
Future Role of Major Programs The major oceanographic programs allow the ocean science S&T community to tackle problems otherwise too large to handle by traditional, principal investigator-based proposals. However, it is not clear to ONR that all problems that are larger than an ad hoc grouping of a few cooperating scientists must be addressed by community-wide programs of the size and scope of WOCE, GLOBC, TOGA, etc. The gap in program size between a few principal investigators and a major fraction of the community is large. ONR funds some intermediate-scale programs (called various names over the years, such as Special Focus Programs and Accelerated Research Initiatives) typically composed of 10-20 investigators and lasting 5 years. ONR finds its interests and objectives are comfortably addressed with this size program. It is possible that a very large program could be formulated as loosely coordinated smaller pieces; this would be more likely to draw ONR into the joint funding of these efforts than the current way of doing business. ONR believes we need to find a way to maximize scientists' time spent on science, and minimize time spent on meetings, coordination, administration, and proposal writing. Programs just big enough to handle carefully defined interdisciplinary bites of the problem, rather than large enough to encompass all possible aspects of the problem, should help. It is the collection of distinct but interrelated intermediate-size efforts that should span the large problems. Box 2-3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Major Oceanographic Programs (Provided by Judith Gray, NOAA) NOAA's Mission The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce is to describe and predict changes in the Earth's environment and to conserve and wisely manage the nation's coastal and marine resources. NOAA forecasts the nation's weather, warns the public of impending severe weather and flooding, conducts scientific research to understand and predict weather and climate change, manages the nation's marine fishery resources, protects endangered ocean species, promotes sustainable use of coastal resources, and conducts scientific research to understand and preserve the environment. NOAA Involvement in Major Oceanographic Programs In NOAA there are five line offices (National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service [NESDIS], National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], National Ocean Service [NOS], National Weather Service [NWS], and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research [OAR]) and one program office (Office of Global Programs [OGP]). All offices participate in, or benefit from, major ocean research
OCR for page 26
programs. Most of NOAA's involvement is the OAR Environmental Research Laboratories (ERL); the NOS Coastal Ocean Program (COP); and in OGP. Data collected by major oceanographic programs is made available to the public through the NESDIS National Oceanographic Data Center and by individual researchers on the World Wide Web. NOAA's Role NOAA's participation in major programs can be categorized loosely as follows, and its role in each category varies from program to program. (1) preprogram planning and development in which NOAA plays a role in designing the research program; (2) program management in which NOAA is responsible for the funding, conduct, and results of the research program; (3) primary program execution in which NOAA is the primary agency to carry out the research; (4) cooperative program execution in which NOAA shares responsibility for program execution with scientists from other agencies, academia, and other nations; (5) post-program synthesis and transfer to operations in which NOAA synthesizes results with those of other national and international research programs and plans and executes the long-term monitoring and prediction program that will transfer what was learned into indices or predictions to guide future policy and management decisions; (6) program oversight in which NOAA sits on advisory or organizing panels that set the broad direction of a program and oversee its execution; and (7) data availability in which NOAA has the primary responsibility for making ocean research data available to the public. Value of Program Results to NOAA NOAA has the national responsibility for weather and climate forecasting. The ocean is a mediator of weather on climatic time scales. As NOAA adds climate and ocean forecasting to its suite of operational products, forecasts will be based on an improved understanding of the oceans provided by the major ocean research programs. In addition, effective management of a resource requires a reasonable knowledge of the primary factors affecting the resource. Understanding the complex interactions of marine species with all the components of their ecosystems is critical to resource management and is provided through results of major oceanographic research programs. Future Role of Major Programs The importance of the ocean in maintaining the Earth's radiation, chemical, and physical balances is becoming more evident to the general public. The future will comprise a wide spectrum of program sizes, including long-term, large-scale, highly coordinated ocean research programs, as well as small independent projects.
OCR for page 27
The size and coordination of the research program will be determined by the scope of the problem addressed. Despite the size of ocean research programs, NOAA will continue its commitment and involvement in ocean science, which is fundamental to achieving NOAA's mission. Box 2-4 The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Major Oceanographic Programs (Provided by Michelle S. Broido, DOE) DOE's Mission One of the DOE missions is to develop the information, scientific "know-how," and technology for identification, characterization, predication, and mitigation of adverse health and environmental consequences of energy production, development, and use. The DOE and its predecessors have a long history of supporting interdisciplinary studies of carbon cycling in ocean systems within this mission area. DOE Involvement in Major Oceanographic Programs The DOE Ocean Margins Program has completed an integrated multidisciplinary field experiment to assess the sources, sinks, and exchange of carbon and other biogenic elements at the land/ocean interface. DOE-supported scientists measured watermass movements; spatial and temporal concentrations of chemical species and particles; biological productivity; zooplankton grazing and bacterial respiration; ecological dynamics; and biogeochemical fluxes of organic particles, nutrients, and dissolved organic carbon between estuarine systems, the shelf, and the interior ocean near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. In conjunction with the NSF, NASA, NOAA, and the Office of Naval Research, DOE supported the U.S. participation in the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE). The DOE-supported activities focused on determining global distribution of CO2 in the ocean as a foundation for predicting future oceanic and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. Value of Program Results to DOE Over the last decade, DOE-sponsored research has promoted the development of cost-effective temperature and chemical sensors and facilitated global observations important for understanding the global carbon cycle. DOE pioneered the use of natural, bomb-generated, and tracer radiocarbon to understand ocean circulation, the factors controlling photosynthetic carbon fixation, and the fate of carbon in the sea. The completed CO2 measurements and WOCE hydrographic data will provide critical information for calibrating ocean-atmosphere interactions and carbon-cycle models, and they are important for determining how the oceans will respond to climate
OCR for page 28
change on decadal to centennial time scales. Quantitative information on the flux and fate of CO2 and biogenic elements at the land/ocean interface is important for assessments of sources and sinks in the global carbon cycle. Future Involvement in Major Oceanographic Programs With the completion of the WOCE CO2 Survey, DOE research has initiated a new program that uses the tools of modern molecular biology and biogeochemistry to understand linkages between coastal carbon and nitrogen cycles. The goals of the Biotechnological Investigations-Ocean Margins Program (BI-OMP) program are to: 1) apply new and innovative techniques in marine molecular biology and marine biotechnology to assess fixation of carbon dioxide, determine the mechanisms and processes that control the dynamics of nitrogen fixation and denitrification in coastal waters and sediments, define coupling of carbon and nitrogen cycles in coastal environments, and determine linkages between function and structure of microbial communities mediating carbon and nitrogen in coastal environments; and 2) examine the environmental factors (including nutrient availability, temperature, irradiance and biopolymer lability) that affect the linkages between primary productivity, the utilization of particulate and dissolved organic matter by bacterial populations and nitrogen cycling in coastal areas. DOE fossil energy programs include research to understand the potential for enhanced ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide. Biological Oceanography supports studies of relationships among marine organisms as well as in cractions of these organisms with their geochemical and physical environment. Physical Oceanography supports research to better understand physical oceanographic phenomena and their interactions on scales from global to molecular. In addition, Ocean Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination supports a wide range of multidisciplinary activities that broadly seek to develop, transfer, or apply instrumentation and technologies that will benefit research programs supported by NSF and enhance the conduct of basic research in the ocean sciences. Focus Initiatives of NSF/OCE In addition to activities funded in response to unsolicited proposals submitted to these discipline programs, NSF/OCE presently funds two additional categories of research activities that they term as Focus Programs and Ocean Drilling. Ocean drilling funds go to support the personnel, facilities, and operations of the ODP. In addition, funds are provided to the U.S. Science Support Program (USSSP) and the U.S. Science Advisory Committee (USSAC). USSSP coordinates U.S. scientific efforts conducted in conjunction with ODP.
OCR for page 29
Focus initiatives include most of the ongoing major oceanographic programs as well as other research initiatives, such as Life in EXtreme ENvironments (LEXEN), Land Margin Ecosystem Research (LMER), or the Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry program (EGB). These other research initiatives typically differ from what this report generally refers to as major oceanographic programs in that they either lack a specific scientific plan or represent the ocean science component of large interdisciplinary studies that span multiple divisions within the Geoscience Directorate or multiple directorates within NSF. Much of the funds directed by NSF/OCE to support focus initiatives recognizable as major oceanographic programs represent NSF/OCE's contribution to the U.S. Global Change Research Program. The U.S. Global Change Research Program Large-scale scientific efforts are often necessary to tackle large-scale environmental problems. Societal concerns over environmental issues played a key role in decisions made during the 1980s and 1990s to dramatically increase federal spending on global change research and to form the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP; USGCRP, 1988 through 1997). The decisions to fund the new major oceanographic programs were given impetus by this chain of events as funds for global change were directed into oceanographic research. For example, many decisions that form the economic policy of nations involve industries that produce the so-called greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs). The role the ocean plays in controlling the atmospheric content of these gases was a major justification for starting JGOFS. A motivation for WOCE was the need to understand the link between ocean circulation and climate. This pressing need for information regarding the role of the ocean in global change and climate played a part in WOCE and JGOFS being the first (and largest) of the current set of major oceanographic programs to be initiated. Thus, it appears that scientific input into a number of policy-making questions played some role in decisions to fund the major programs, as many programs were justified under the broad framework of the USGCRP. NSF plays a key role in this program, sponsoring academic research of this type and scale in cooperation with other federal funding agencies that collectively constitute the USGCRP. This program consists of seven integrated and interdisciplinary science elements. As shown in Table 2-1, many of the existing major oceanographic programs are relevant to these science elements (USGCRP, 1989). The new moneys made available in the 1980s to study global change came during a period when the overall percentage of the total federal investment in basic ocean research and development was falling (Figs 2-2a and b). The new funds are a welcome source of support for research funded through the NSF/OCE. However, as is demonstrated by Figure 2-3, a significant portion of NSF/OCE budget is earmarked for global change research. Funds available to support
OCR for page 30
TABLE 2.1 Relationship of Major Oceanographic Programs to USGCRP Science Elements USGCRP Science Element (USGCRP, 1989) Major Oceanographic Program Biogeochemical dynamics JGOFS Ecological systems and dynamics GLOBEC, JGOFS Climate and hydrological systems WOCE, TOGA, LOICZa Human interactions LOICZ Earth system history MESH,b ODP Solid earth processes RIDGE Solar influences — a LOICZ = Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone. b MESH = Marine aspects of Earth System History. unsolicited proposals through the four discipline or core programs—biological, chemical, and physical oceanography, and marine geology and geophysics—have remained essentially flat (Fig. 2-4a). When adjusted for inflation, there was even a slight decrease in funds for the four discipline programs (Fig. 2-4b). Consequently, while the funds for large programs expanded rapidly, fueling research and the training of a new generation of ocean scientists (Fig. 2-5), funding for nonprogram related research languished (Fig. 2-4a and b). The goals of many of the ongoing projects are clearly relevant to the nation's need to better understand global change. Thus, it is only logical that the vast majority of funds provided to NSF/OCE to support global change research are directed toward the major programs. This often creates confusion within the ocean science research community, however, as unsolicited proposals relevant to global change are sometimes labeled as part of a specific program. In addition, global change-related program proposals often appear to be funded at a higher rate than unsolicited proposals not relevant to global change, as NSF/OCE program managers must give some emphasis to supporting global change-related research. The distribution of funds between these two research approaches (major programs and research funded through unsolicited proposals submitted to the discipline-specific core programs of NSF/OCE5) has thus emerged as a difficult issue in a research community already stressed by increasing numbers of investigators competing for a share of a small funding pool. For example, the 1995 report of the NSF/OCE Committee of Visitors specifically asked for an examination of many aspects of major oceanographic programs including the balance between core and major program funding and the impact of these programs on collegiality in the ocean science community. 5 Throughout the report, the term "core" refers to that component of research funded through unsolicited proposals submitted to the discipline-specific programs of NSF/OCE.
OCR for page 31
Figure 2-2a Trends (in current dollars) in total federal spending research and development vs federal funding for ocean science. Data from the Historical Tables in the FY 1999 White House Budget of the U.S. government and provided by DOE, EPA, NASA, NOAA. NSF (OCE), ONR, MMS, and the USGS (Appendix F). The National Academy Of Sciences And Oceanography As the Meteor expedition was drawing to a close in 1927, the National Academy of Sciences authorized the appointment of the NAS Committee on Oceanography, or NASCO, to "consider the share of the United States in a worldwide program of oceanographic research." (NAS, 1951). Since that time, several NAS/NRC committees have examined the health and future of national and international oceanographic efforts. Three of the most notable reports to come out of these deliberations are directly applicable to this study. Oceanography 1960 to 1970. The third NAS/NRC Committee on Oceanography stressed the importance of oceanography and lamented its slow growth
OCR for page 32
Figure 2-2b Trends (in constant 1997 dollars) in total federal spending research and development vs federal funding for ocean science. Data from the Historical Tables in the FY 1999 White House Budget of the U.S. government and provided by DOE, EPA, NASA, NOAA, NSF (OCE), ONR, MMS, and the USGS (Appendix F). NOTE: Constant 1997 dollars calculated using the Consumer Price Indices from http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/cale/hist1913.html, 04/24/98:1997 price = Year X price (1997 price/Year X price).
OCR for page 33
Figure 2-3 Percentage of the Ocean Sciences Division (OCE) of NSF Total Division Budget (in current dollars) allocated for global change and non-global change activities during the 1997 fiscal year. Data provided by NSF/OCE (Appendix F) Figure 2-4a Funding (in current dollars) for Focus Initiative research (e.g., World Ocean Circulation Experiment [WOCE], GLOBal Ocean ECosystem Dynamics [GLOBEC]) and "core" Disciplinary Program research (e.g. physical oceanography, marine geology and geophysics) funded through the Ocean Sciences Division (OCE) of NSF. Data provided by NSF/OCE (Appendix F). NOTE: As can be seen in Appendix F. NSF/OCE does not include ODP as a Focus Initiative.
OCR for page 34
Figure 2-4b Funding (in constant 1997 dollars) for Focus Initiatives (e.g., World Ocean Circulation Experiment [WOCE]. GLOBal Ocean ECosystem Dynamics [GLOBEC]) and ''core" Disciplinary Programs (e.g., physical oceanography, marine geology and geophysics) funded through the Ocean Sciences Division (OCE) of NSF. Data provided by NSF/OCE (Appendix F). NOTE: As can be seen in Appendix F. NSF/OCE does not include ODP as a Focus Initiative. Constant 1997 dollars calculated using the Consumer Price Indices from http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/economy/cale/hist1913.html. 04/24/98:1997 price = Year X price (1997 price/Year X price). compared to other science fields at the time. The committee's report Oceanography 1960 to 1970 called for greater support for "marine science" and recommended that this increased support be accompanied by "a new program of ocean-wide surveys" (NAS, 1959). Many of the concepts laid out in that report can be seen in the planning and execution of IDOE.
OCR for page 35
Figure 2-5 Number of Ph.D.s (cumulative and year-by-year) in oceanography. Data from NSF, 1997. The Continuing Quest: Large-scale Ocean Science for the Future. As IDOE neared its conclusion. NSF approached the NAS and the NAE to continue to provide advice on the nature of programs to follow IDOE. The NAS and NAE, through the NRC's Ocean Sciences Board (precursor of today's Ocean Studies Board [OSB]), created the Post-IDOE Planning Study Steering Committee in 1977. The steering committee, which by design included both individuals involved in, and independent of, the IDOE programs, helped NSF organize a series of four discipline-related workshops (i.e., physical oceanography, biological oceanography, chemical oceanography, and marine geology and geophysics); conducted reviews of the workshop discussion papers; and recommended the focus and organization of potential IDOE follow-on programs. The resulting NRC report The Continuing Quest: Large-scale Ocean Science for the Future provided a number of recommendations that are equally applicable today.
OCR for page 36
Oceanography in the Next Decade: Building New Partnerships. Beginning in 1990, the NRC's Ocean Studies Board (OSB) began a systematic effort to chart a new direction for ocean science in this country. Through a series of widely attended workshops and the use of questionnaires, OSB attempted to synthesize and vocalize the opinions of the ocean science community. The resulting 1992 NRC report Oceanography in the Next Decade: Building New Partnerships documented important trends in human, physical, and fiscal resources at the time; presented an assessment of the scientific opportunities in the four major ocean science disciplines; and provided "a blue print for more productive partnerships between academic oceanographers and federal agencies." The Present Challenge With the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), the pressure to hold funding levels constant (or even reduce support) for basic research cannot be expected to dissipate. As discussed before, even during times of overall growth in federal spending on research and development, the ocean sciences have not fared particularly well, with the possible exception of high profile initiatives such as IDOE and the USGCRP. Thus, the commonly articulated expectation is that overall funding for ocean sciences will remain flat. Consequently, new resources that will help relieve the funding pressure on OCE and NSF as a whole cannot be counted on. Simultaneously, many of the major oceanographic programs funded under the USGCRP are winding down. Unless the funds dedicated to supporting major programs remain with NSF/OCE when these programs end, competition for funding can be expected to increase as researchers previously funded through the major programs begin to submit unsolicited proposals. During this phase in the evolution of ocean science, the pressures on NSF and the research community have resulted in a number of actions undertaken by the NSF/OCE to help ensure the vitality of the field. In addition to conducting community workshops to discuss the important research issues in biological, chemical, geological, and physical oceanography, NSF/OCE requested that the NRC form the Committee on Major U.S. Oceanographic Research Programs. This invitation is consistent with the traditional role the National Academy of Sciences complex has played in assuring the health of ocean science in the United States and around the world.
Representative terms from entire chapter: