Cover Image

HARDBACK
$47.00



View/Hide Left Panel

TABLE 3 Major U.S. IDOE Projects

Programs/Projects

Number of Institutions

Number of Scientific Investigators

Year Begun

Expected Year of Completion

Estimated Total Cost ($M)

U.S. Agencies Providing Funds

Environmental Forecasting

NORPAXa

28

45

1971

1982

29.7

ONR

CLIMAP

8

22

1971

1980

8.0

 

MODE

16

45

1971

1974

8.0

ONR, NOAA

ISOS

9

16

1974

1981

10.2

NSF

POLYMODE

12

35

1975

1982

15.5

ONR, NOAA

Environmental Quality

GEOSECS

14

28

1971

1980

23.5

ERDA

Pollutant Baseline

17

30

1971

1978

2.3

 

Pollutant Transfer

9

10

1972

1979

10.0

 

Biological Effects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Field (CEPEX)

5

10

1973

1980

6.5

 

Laboratory

6

8

1973

1979

10.0

 

SEAREX

9

15

1977

1983

4.6

 

PRIMA

5

6

1978

1984

2.4

 

Seabed Assessment

South Atlantic Margins

2

15

1971

1975

4.0

 

Nazca Plate

3

25

1971

1977

6.0

 

FAMOUS

4

10

1972

1975

2.0

NSF, ONR, NOAA

Manganese Nodules

10

18

1972

1977

4.0

 

MANOP

11

21

1977

1984

8.0

 

Galapagos

3

9

1976

1979

1.4

 

RISE

5

7

1977

1980

1.3

 

SEATAR

7

15

1975

1980

5.4

 

CENOP

11

15

1978

1982

2.8

 

Living Resources

CUEA

13

11

1972

1979

16.1

 

SES

10

11

1974

1981

7.0

 

a See Appendix H for the definitions of acronyms.

workshops. Although there was surely some merit in the concerns expressed by those scientists who felt neglected, I do not believe the early projects themselves failed to address any important significant aspects of the scientific research needed to achieve the objectives of the projects.

Once the projects resulting from the workshops had been identified as appropriate for consideration by IDOE, and the proposals submitted, the well-established NSF peer-review process played a critical role in the final selection of projects for funding. Like most NSF proposals, DOE proposals were subjected to peer review. In the case of IDOE, these were mail reviews, and the mail reviews for each project were then carefully considered by a panel of specialists that made its own recommendations.

One of the major difficulties in reviewing IDOE projects was that traditionally NSF reviewers were accustomed to reviewing only individual projects and the reviews focused on the question of scientific excellence and receiving ratings accordingly. But IDOE projects included all of the tasks necessary to achieve success, and while not all of these tasks were the type to receive excellent ratings, each of them was essential to the success of the project. Mail reviewers were quick to point out the deficiencies in these proposals, to note the routine character of certain tasks, and to give them only fair ratings. In NSF, the administration was accustomed to funding only those individual projects receiving excellent ratings by the reviewers. Early on, we in the IDOE office were able to explain to the NSF chain of command, without too much difficulty, that these routine tasks were essential to the projects even though they did not receive high marks from the reviewers. At the time, we reported directly to the Assistant Director for National and International Programs, whose office understood the problem and fortunately proposals did not receive heavy scrutiny above that level.

Later on, in response to pressure from Congress, a review board was established in each directorate, plus a review board for special items requiring approval by the Foundation's governing body, the National Science Board. The review boards compounded the prospects for delay and



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