Charting the Future of Methane Hydrate Research in the United States (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Scientific Oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program
5 Scientific Oversight of the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program
Pages 83-92
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 83... ...
Implementing the recommendations in earlier chapters and meeting the goals of the act will not be possible without addressing issues of increased scientific oversight utilizing the advisory panels and external program and proposal reviews. THE METHANE HYDRATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 (Appendix B)
|
From page 84... ...
; and (3) not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and at such later dates as the panel considers advisable, submit to Congress a report on the anticipated impact on global climate change from- (A)
|
From page 85... ...
The first MHAC determined that members with the expertise to prepare such a report were otherwise committed and could not deliver the report in the time required by the act. Therefore, they commissioned a consultant to prepare a report on the effects of methane hydrate releases on global climate change (Kennett, 2002)
|
From page 86... ...
Implementing these changes will help ensure that the goals of the Methane Hydrate R&D Program are being met with the best scientific input provided in a timely fashion. THE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND THE TECHNICAL COORDINATING TEAM In addition to the MHAC, the Methane Hydrate R&D Act of 2000 called for interagency coordination in methane hydrate research and development (Box 5.2)
|
From page 87... ...
At the first meeting of the ICC, in January 2001, each member of the panel reported on current methane hydrate activities within his or her agency and made recommendations regarding future mechanisms for interagency coordination. In addition, the ICC determined that an interagency Technical Coordinating Team (TCT)
|
From page 88... ...
The TCT should work closely with the MHAC to evaluate ongoing programs and set new directions for priorities. SCIENCE IN THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS To select projects for funding, the DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program currently uses a "merit-based review" of proposals submitted through either RFPs or broad-based solicitations.
|
From page 89... ...
This internal, merit-based, DOE review process is not as effective as it could be in examining the program as a whole and ensuring that overall program goals are met. While merit-based reviews are consistent with the language in the act, the additional use of external peer reviewers in the project selection process would serve to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, aid in the perception of fairness to the research community, provide scientific guidance to program managers, and perhaps improve the quality of the program.
|
From page 90... ...
This statement would require members of the MHAC to recuse themselves from programmatic discus sions and decisions if the outcome might affect their employer and/or other financial interests. · All projects over a defined dollar level should be submitted to external review following appropriate guidelines and procedures (e.g., those of NSF)
|
From page 91... ...
, and the comments and recommendations received should be evaluated by the MHAC or similar body in keeping with the conflict-of-interest protocol. The DOE Methane Hydrate R&D Program should implement a mechanism to incorporate greater scientific oversight to assess progress toward program goals, evaluate program balance, and enhance the quality of the program over time.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.