Response to the 2003 Committee of Visitors Report

NSF Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE).

October 2, 2003

FROM:

Dr. James Yoder, Director, OCE

Mr. H. Lawrence Clark, Section Head, Ocean Section, OCE

Dr. Bruce Malfait, Section Head, Marine Geosciences Section, OCE

Dr. Alex Isern, Program Director, Ocean Technology and Interdisciplinary
Coordination.

We, and the Program Staff, would like to thank the 2003 Committee of
Visitors (COV) for their time and efforts to review research programs in
the Ocean (OS) and Marine Geosciences (MGS) Sections, and the Ocean
Technology and Interdisciplinary Coordination (OTIC) Program. We very
much appreciate the time you spent visiting NSF, meeting with the staff
and writing the report. We also appreciate that the COV recognized that
our programs are well managed and efficiently run, and that they support
an exceptionally broad portfolio of outstanding and innovative research.
The Program Managers in the Division of Ocean Sciences work extremely
hard to ensure that our research programs are worthy of such high
praise. OCE management shares the COV's greatest concern that increasing
workload on our Program Managers is affecting their ability to
communicate with Pis, visit institutions, track program trends, and
attend professional meetings and workshops. We are trying to do our best
to deal with workload issues, but it is a difficult challenge for us
given that few new FTEs or IPAs are available. In the near term, we plan
to hire more Science Assistants and expect to have at least one new
position filled this year.

In the Overview, the COV made 9 recommendations, and each is briefly
discussed below.

**1. a re-examination by NSF, and the home institutions of IPAs, of the
financial and career incentives they provide to facilitate the
recruitment of the highest quality individuals into IPA positions;**

IPAs are an important part of OCE, and we agree that we need to recruit
high quality individuals into these positions. Depending upon their
professional and personal situation, current NSF policies can discourage
some researchers from becoming IPAs. For example, per diem allowances do
not fully cover the additional housing and other living expenses in the
D.C. area for those whose personal situations require that they also
maintain a residence near their home institutions. OCE supports changes
to some of the IPA policies that discourage participation, although such
changes are made at the Agency level.

OCE recognizes that most IPAs return to their home institutions
following their time at NSF and will continue their own research
programs. Thus, it is important that IPAs stay engaged with their home
institutions and with their research colleagues. OCE encourages full use
of the Individual Research and Development (I/RD) program that NSF makes
available to IPAs, which allows IPAs to participate in research at their
home institutions and elsewhere. OCE also encourages IPAs to attend
professional meetings and workshops as part of their NSF duties. These
opportunities help IPAs stay in contact with their home institutions,
continue to engage in research and stay abreast of developments in their
field.

**2. a re-evaluation by the Division of the mix of expertise required on
the support staff, as well as staff training needs, in light of the move
toward electronic proposal processing;**

OCE encourages training in preparation for electronic proposal
processing. In light of the move toward e-jacket, we are also taking
steps to increase the number of Science Assistants in the Division.

**3. clarifying for investigators and reviewers the variety of ways
Review Criterion 2 can be met;**

NSF prepared a 5-page document on this topic, which we have now
prominently linked to the OCE section (under "Important Announcements")
of the GEO web page. We also highlighted this and other information in a
recent e-letter to our mailing list and will again highlight changes to
the broader impacts criteria for NSF proposals in our Fall 2003
newsletter. Beginning with the 2003 panels, we began compiling
statistics on how OCE proposals are responding to the broader impacts
criteria and will present these results in a future newsletter and in
other venues.

**4. encouraging OCE program managers to increase the utilization of
SGER grants for funding small, high-risk, or rapid response, proposals
and publicizing this opportunity to investigators;**

We included a section on SGER opportunities in the Fall 2003 newsletter.
The Division Director will continue discussing this issue with Program
staff and is considering some sort of incentive system (e.g. matching
funds) to increase participation in FY04.

**5. providing sufficient travel funds for program managers to attend
meetings, workshops, and institutions to meet with investigators,
especially young investigators;**

Funds available for civil servant travel are determined for the Division
by NSF management based on the number of employees, with overall funding
levels for the agency set by Congress. OCE management tries to fairly
distribute these funds among the programs, and also encourages IPA
travel (which is supported from a different account). When visiting
institutions, our Program Managers (as well as Section Heads and the
Division Director) generally make a point to meet with young
faculty/researchers and with students, and the Division management will
continue to encourage such visits.

**6. continue to encourage and facilitate participation of
under-represented groups in ocean research programs;**

The Division Director will continue to encourage OCE Program Managers to
support proposals submitted by under-represented groups when they are
meritorious. We will also work with Dr. Jacqueline Huntoon, recently
hired by the Directorate for Geosciences as Staff Associate for
Diversity and Education, to continue our Division efforts to improve
participation by under-represented groups in our research programs by
increasing the pool of future applicants from under-represented groups.

**7. securing a significant increase in funding for ocean drilling and
ocean observatory-related research in order to fully realize the
potential of the major infrastructure investments the Division will be
making in these areas over the next few years;**

Funding for both is a high priority for growth in the Division. Ocean
drilling starts from a considerable funding base of support associated
with ODP, but additional funds are required to meet U.S. commitments to
the IODP, which by FY07 will exceed \$75M/year for operations and
science. The OCE Division Director is working with the Assistant
Director for Geosciences to identify new funds in FY06 and FY07 to meet
NSF commitments to this important project. Ocean Observatories
potentially requires as much, or more, funding as for ocean drilling,
and starts from a base of near \$0 in FY02. A (if not THE) major
challenge for OCE for the next 5+ years is to identify funds for
operating the observatories and for supporting scientific research that
utilizes observatory infrastructure. In FY03, OCE began setting aside
funds (to match those provided by OCE programs) to support certain types
of proposals adjudged to meet key criteria for interdisciplinary
observatory science. We have also supported development projects (e.g.
MARS and NEPTUNE) necessary to prepare for the science-driven
initiatives. We have thus started the process of identifying funds for
both drilling and observatories but obviously have a long way to go.

**8. placing a greater emphasis on compiling and publicizing major
scientific achievements that result from NSF research support.**

The Division Director now asks the Program Managers to provide this
information every year as part of the process to compile science nuggets
for the GPRA reports. The Division Director and others highlight these
accomplishments when summarizing OCE accomplishments both within and
external to NSF. We also plan to present this information on the OCE
section of the GEO webpage and in our newsletter updates

**9. increasing the efficiency of the COV process by providing the next
COV with a written Division overview and a more complete set of
information on proposals and funding history as detailed in Part C, Item
C.5 (p.27) of this report.**

We recognize that some of the questions asked of the COV on the Core
Questions and Report Template are difficult to address without improved
databases at the Program level on proposal attributes, and review and
funding decisions in both the Core and special emphasis areas. It is
equally difficult to predict in advance the questions likely to be asked
of the next COV, which could guide definition of detailed programmatic
data to be captured on a routine basis by the Program staff.

We are evaluating the specific recommendations of the COV to identify
the optimal way of ensuring that the identified data is more readily
available for the next COV, while limiting the additional workload that
this might require of the Program and administrative staff in the
routine processing of proposals.

[Response to other general comments and findings from the
COV]{.underline}

**COV found that the panel summaries were often cursory and should be
more complete to help the PI understand the basis for the panel's
recommendation (on p. 8).**

The Section Heads and Division Director will remind the Program Managers
on this issue and will not approve cursory write ups of panel
recommendations.

We will continue the practice of being proactive in providing input to
junior investigators.

**Investigate the possibility of implementing an automated reminder
system for proposal reviewers (p. 10) .**

We agree this is a good idea and will work to implement as part of
"e-jacket".

**Pursue more integrated, multidisciplinary climate studies. (p. 26)**

We agree. One area under consideration for additional funding is the
area of Abrupt Climate Change, and is also being discussed as a possible
topic for collaboration with other GEO Divisions.

**Develop a risk metric (e.g. new P.I., new kind of experiment or
instrument), and provide this information to the next COV. The COV
encourages program directors to support SGER and other high-risk
proposals. (p. 13)**

The COV noted the importance of SGER proposals for encouraging and
supporting high-risk research. The Division agrees with the COV that a
community outreach program needs to be initiated with the goal of
educating the community on the availability of SGERs and the criteria
that need to be met in order to be successful. This could be done not
only through the OCE Newsletter (summer/fall, 2003 issue will include a
short section on SGER) but also on the webpage and through flyers and
discussions with Program Managers at National Meetings.

OCE will work to develop a "risk" code to be added to those already
noted for each proposal to enable the number of risky proposals received
to be accounted for as well as how many are awarded versus those
declined. The labeling of a proposal as "risky" is subjective.
Nevertheless, this information will still be useful. The fact that the
PI on a given proposal may be an early career researcher in itself does
not make a proposal risky. This categorization should be based on the
work proposed, not the research team.

**The COV believes that the suggestion by program directors to require a
single table in a proposal summarizing the conflicts of all
investigators in a proposal is an excellent idea. (p. 11)**

The Division supports this approach and will continue to advocate within
NSF for this change to be made.

**Need an NSF-wide database of reviewer assignments. (p. 11)**

The NSF reviewer and panelist system presently provides a summary for
each reviewer of the number of proposals that individual has been sent
in the present fiscal year. Programs use this information to avoid
overloading individuals with excessive number of review requests.
Programs are also conscious of continuing need to expand the reviewer
community through addition of new reviewers (recent graduates,
post-docs, etc.), and careful selection of foreign reviewers.

[Response to Issues and Concerns Related to Marine Geosciences Section
(MGG and ODP programs)]{.underline}

**The processing of \~450 proposals per year, plus time spent on
interdisciplinary proposals, facilities oversight, etc., is placing a
huge demand on the program directors time. (p. 28)**

The COV has identified a significant and growing concern in
administration of the Section's programs. The identified number of
proposals (450) somewhat overstates the problem since approximately 50%
of the proposals submitted are part of "collaborative" projects. But,
the increasing demands identified on "non-proposal" activities continue
to increase and require an increasing amount of program officer time.
Additional staff within the Section/Division would be beneficial in
addressing this problem.

**Despite the recent growth in the MGG core budget, a continuing concern
is the low success rate (\~22%) for proposals submitted to the MGG core
program. The average MGG grant size is the lowest, and grant duration is
the second lowest, among the programs within the Division. (p. 28)**

Increasing grant size and duration toward identified NSF targets will
continue to be high priority goals for both the MGG and ODP programs.
All programs receive increases as NSF's budget increases. The Division
Director's priority for the Marine Geosciences Section is to increase
science funding for IODP to take advantage of the large infrastructure
investments. The Division Director will continue to watch proposal
pressure in MGG to see if exceptional increases are warranted above
those received by other OCE programs.

**Funding levels for the MARGINS and RIDGE2000 programs will have to be
increased in order to achieve the goals established by these programs
within a reasonable timeframe. (p. 28)**

Funding increases for the MARGINS program have occurred in all three of
the Foundation units supporting the Program (MGG, ODP and Earth Sciences
(EAR) and are likely to continue. RIDGE2000 is a priority area for
future funding increases.

**Given the emphasis within the MESH/ESH program on Holocene climate
change, there is concern that there is an overemphasis on this same
topic within the core program. (p. 28)**

Establishing focused programs often generates an increase in proposal
pressure on related topics to the Core Program. Although not viewed as a
significant problem, the MGG program will closely monitor submission of
"ESH/MESH" --related proposals to Core and transfer such proposals for
consideration during the "ESH/MESH" review cycle.

**The MGG program needs to work more closely with EAR and ATM on the
development and joint funding of programs of mutual interest such as ESH
and MARGINS, and proposed programs such as Ocean Mantle Dynamics. (p.
28)**

The MGG Program presently works closely with both EAR and ODP on joint
funding and management of the MARGINS program, and with ATM on the ESH
Program. This includes joint program solicitations and announcements,
joint panels for review of proposals, joint funding of submitted
proposals, and joint oversight of research results. Similar close
cooperation will be developed with EAR as the Ocean Mantle Dynamics
Program becomes more fully developed.

[Response to Issues and Concerns Related to the Ocean Section (BO, CO,
and PO programs):]{.underline}

**It would be easier for COVs, the scientific community and program
managers to assess the scientific breadth of their programs if metrics
were kept on Ocean Section sub disciplines, under represented groups,
degree of scientific risk and inter-disciplinary and collaborative
nature of submitted and funded proposals. (p. 29)**

This concern has also been addressed above under recommendation #9. We
recognize the importance of improved and standardized databases at the
program level. We also realize that much of the data suggested for
capture is quite subjective and cannot be readily automated. It is
difficult to predict in advance what data will be required to address
questions likely to be asked of the next COV. We are evaluating the
specific recommendations of the COV with regards to data capture in
light of identified workload issues.

At the next COV, programs will be encouraged to present additional
statistical data that they routinely and independently collect. At this
past COV, programs were encouraged to focus on research areas and
opportunities.

**There appear to be significant differences in the return rate of mail
reviews in different Ocean Section programs. Programs with low return
rates need to be more proactive in soliciting proposal reviews.** **(p.
29)**

Ocean Section program managers are quite aggressive in seeking completed
reviews; follow-up emails and telephone calls are the norm. The
differences in return rate between programs appears to be more a
function of community differences between disciplines rather than the
degree of soliciting between programs.

The Committee's recommendation with regard to implementing an automated
reminder system for reviewers may also help to ameliorate this issue.

**Ocean Sciences should have a key role in the planning and
implementation of ocean observatories under the OOI. Both facilities
development and research must be partners in the planning and
implementation of ocean observatories. (p. 29)**

This is a very important point and one we have been working on since the
inception of the OOI. Ocean research program directors have been and
continue to be actively engaged in OOI planning through workshop and
meeting participation as well as through parallel supportive activities,
such as sponsoring sensor development and planning for appropriate
data/IT capability assessment. Research programs are also participating
in the review and joint consideration of proposals dealing with
time-series research, which we see as initial steps leading to an ocean
observatory science research area.

**Increased interactions between Ocean Sciences and the Atmospheric
Science Division can lead to new opportunities for the oceanographic
community in climate and global change research programs.** **(p. 29)**

Good progress has been made in recent years in increasing the
interactions between ATM and OCE. The Chemical Oceanography and
Atmospheric Chemistry programs routinely jointly consider certain
proposals, and the Water Cycle Research program has fostered enhanced
interactions as well. Augmented collaborations are anticipated with
improvements in ocean circulation models that better incorporate air/sea
interactions.

**The funding growth rate of the Division's research programs have
differed significantly over the past decade; the Section Head and
Division Director are encouraged to examine the causes of these trends.
(p. 29)**

The percentage increase to Core funding has been fairly consistent
across programs. Differences in total growth arise primarily through a
program's participation in special focus areas or targeted research
areas that received enhanced budgets. OCE management has, and will
continue to balance growth amongst the research programs to the extent
it can with untargeted budget increases.

[Response to issues and concerns related to the Ocean Technology and
Interdisciplinary Coordination (OTIC) Program]{.underline}

**The OOI initiative will place a significant burden on the OTIC
program, and it will need an additional program manager or IPA. (p.
30)**

As has occurred for other MREFC projects, it is envisioned that once
MREFC funds are appropriated for the OOI, an additional Program Manager
will be assigned to assume the duties related to oversight of the OOI
and the ORION Program.

**The investment strategy of OOI in global, regional and coastal
observatories is an issue in some parts of the community. OTIC, working
with the Ocean and Marine Geosciences sections and the broader
community, should continue to take a strong leadership role in the
development of that strategy. (p. 30)**

It is of the utmost importance to the Division of Ocean Sciences that
the investment strategy of the OOI reflects priority science needs. To
ensure that the network of observing sites constructed with MREFC funds
meets these needs, OTIC has sponsored several workshops to gather input
from the Ocean Science Community. Once the ORION Project Office is
established in the first quarter of 2004, this group will be tasked with
developing a Science and Implementation Plan for the OOI through
consultation with the ORION advisory structure and with oversight from
NSF. The overall investment strategy for the OOI and the direction of
the ORION Program will also be driven by high-quality, peer-reviewed
science proposals submitted to NSF.

**The OOI will require significant scientific and instrumentation
support beyond the MRE funds to realize its full potential. It is
critical that the Ocean and Marine Geosciences Sections work closely
with OTIC to exploit the scientific use of OOI. The evolution of CoOP
should be reactive to the scientific aspects of the coastal component of
OOI. (p. 30)**

During each proposal round, OTIC sends instrumentation proposals to
Panels in both the Ocean and Marine Geosciences Sections in order to
gather community opinion on the utility of the various development
efforts proposed. Nevertheless, as planning for the OOI and the ORION
Program move forward it is essential that all Programs in OCE take a
more proactive role in encouraging the development of scientific
instrumentation for the collection of unattended long-time series data
sets. Advances in instrumentation development are particularly important
to ensure that the needs of the biological and chemical oceanography
communities are met.

OTIC agrees with the COV that the CoOP Program should take a leading
role in the evolution of the coastal component of the OOI. This group
has strongly been encouraged to do so and is in the process of
discussion regarding the best way to integrate with the soon to be
established ORION advisory structure.

**The relationship between the research-based OOI initiative and the
more operational US Integrated Ocean Observation System (IOOS) needs to
be formalized, perhaps by working through the NOPP process. (p. 30)**

An important task of the ORION Project Office will be to help establish
a more formal plan for interaction between IOOS and the OOI. This
interaction should not only occur at more senior levels, most likely
through the NOPP program as suggested by the COV, but also at a
Programmatic Level through individual observing initiatives that serve
common interests between NSF and the agencies more closely involved with
the IOOS. OTIC will work closely with the ORION Project Office to ensure
that this interaction takes place at appropriate levels within the ORION
Management Structure.