**Advisory Committee for Geosciences Directorate (AC/GEO)**

**May 11-12, 2005**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, Virginia**

**MEETING SUMMARY**

**[Members Present:]{.underline}**

**Dr. William Brune**, Department of Meteorology, Penn State University,
University Park, PA

**Dr. Susan Brantley**, Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA

**Dr. Francisco Chavez**, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss
Landing, CA

**Dr. Robert Detrick**, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, MA

**Dr. Robert Harriss**, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO

**Dr. Raymond Jeanloz**, Departments of Earth and Planetary Science and
Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA

**Dr. Walter Lynn**, Lynn Incorporated, Houston, TX

**Dr. Sharon Mosher**, Department of Geological Science, University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, TX

**Dr. Samuel Myers, Jr.,** Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public
Affairs, University of Minnesota (CEOSE liaison)

**Dr. Cheryl Peach,** University of CA-SD Scripps Institute, San Diego,
CA

**Dr. Mary Silver**, Ocean Sciences Department, University of
California, Santa Cruz, CA

**Dr. Roger Smith,** Department of Space Physics, Geophysics Institute,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK

**Dr. Karen Von Damm**, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH

**Dr. John Wilson**, Department of Earth & Environmental Science, New
Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, Socorro, NM

**[Members Absent]{.underline}**

**Dr. Larry Mayer,** Center for Coastal & Ocean Mapping, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH

**[GEO Senior Staff Present:]{.underline}**

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director, Directorate for Geosciences
(GEO)

**Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh**, Deputy Director, GEO

**Mr. Larry Clark,** Director, Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE)

**Dr. Richard Behnke**, Section Head, Upper Atmosphere Research, ATM

**Dr. Jacqueline Huntoon**, Program Director for Diversity and
Education, GEO

**Dr. Clifford Jacobs**, Section Head, UCAR and Lower Atmospheric
Facilities, ATM

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

**Dr. Jarvis Moyers**, Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM)

**Mr. William Smith**, Staff Associate for Budget, GEO

**Dr. Thomas Spence**, Senior Science Associate and Executive Secretary
of AC/GEO

**Ms. Pamela Stephens**, Section Head, Lower Atmospheric Research
Section, ATM

**Dr. James Whitcomb**, Section Head, Deep Earth Processes, EAR

**Dr. Herman Zimmerman**, Director, Division of Earth Sciences (EAR)

The Advisory Committee for the Geosciences Directorate (AC/GEO) held
their spring meeting May 11-12, 2005 at the National Science Foundation
in Arlington, Virginia.

####### ***Wednesday, May 11, 2005***

# Plenary Session 1

## Welcome, Introductions of New Members, Agenda and Status of Actions from Last Meeting

Dr. William Brune, Acting Chair, called the full plenary session to
order at 8:30 a.m. Introductions were made. Dr. Raymond Jeanloz was
welcomed as a new AC/GEO member. Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant
Director, GEO, noted that Dr. Robert Detrick had resigned as Chair
because of a potential conflict of interest.

The October 27-29, 2004 AC/GEO Meeting Summary was approved.

## Orientation for Members 

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Deputy Director, GEO, described the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that applies when a federal official seeks
advice from a group that includes non-federal members. FACA committees
must be chartered through General Services Administration (GSA) and the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), publish announcements of their
meetings in the Federal Register, and file annual reports. Dr. Thomas
Spence, AC/GEO Executive Secretary, serves as the Designated Foundation
Official (DFO) and is responsible for compliance of the Committee with
the FACA. The AC/GEO charter denotes the scope, duties, and membership
requirements. Membership is expected to include about 15 members
representing various geographic regions, scientific areas, types of
institutions, and individuals from under-represented groups. It is
assumed that Committee members are in communication with representative
elements of the geosciences community. The members are appointed by Dr.
Leinen, the Federal Official receiving the advice from the Committee.
The normal term is 3 years with meetings twice a year or more. Members
must comply with the requirements of the ethics laws and standards of
conduct as directed by FACA.

## Report on the Directorate for Geosciences

Dr. Margaret Leinen provided an update on activities within the
Directorate for Geosciences:

[Budget:]{.underline} The FY 2005 budget request was for \$5.75B, but
only \$5.47B was enacted, which was 1.9 percent less than last year. The
budget request for FY2006 is for \$5.61B, which is \$140M less than the
FY 2005 request, but \$130M more than what was enacted in FY2005. The
House allocation is down 4.5 percent from FY 2005.

The NSF budget priorities are to:

-   Strengthen core disciplinary research (increase success rates
    despite declining budget)

-   Provide broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure and world class
    research facilities

-   Broaden participation in the science and engineering workforce
    (attract greater diversity)

-   Sustain organization excellence in NSF management practices.

The Foundation is now in a newly reorganized appropriation committee in
the Senate and House.

[GEO Personnel and Organization]{.underline}: Mr. Larry Clark has been
appointed Division Director for Ocean Sciences and Dr. Phillip Taylor is
Acting Section Head for Ocean Sciences. Dr John Walter is a new program
director and Simone Metz, a new associate program director. New
personnel in Earth Sciences include Dr. Arthur Goldstein, Section Head
for Surface Earth Processes, and Michael Ellis as a new program
director.

[Biocomplexity Competition]{.underline}: Dr. Bement decided to extend
the biocomplexity competition for 2 years, and then have the research
funding become part of the core research program. GEO has been a major
player in Coupled Biogeochemical Cycles (CBC) and Genome-enabled
environmental research (GENEN). CBC will become a single coordinated
program on global cycles including carbon cycle, water cycle, and
biogeochemistry. Discussions are underway to continue GENEN as a new
program called Environmental Genomics. Other biocomplexity areas such as
Coupled Natural and Human Systems (CNH) and Instrument Development for
Environmental Applications (IDEA) will continue as well, with funds
remaining in GEO.

[Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
(MREFC)]{.underline}

-   HIAPER was ferried to Boulder, CO, on March 11and is undergoing
    systems integration. It is scheduled to begin initial science
    missions in August. The current project should finish on time and on
    budget.

-   EarthScope was funded at \$46.97M in FY2005 and its progress
    continues on schedule.

-   The Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel received \$15M toward its
    outfitting in FY2005. A ship contract will be awarded next
    September.

-   Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) has requested \$13.5M for
    FY2006. One or more test beds will be established for developing and
    enhancing coastal areas.

-   The contract design for the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV) was
    completed in November 2004. The request for FY2006 is \$49.32M.

-   The Advanced Module Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR) is supported by
    the Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) to develop the next
    generation in upper atmospheric radar systems. Extensive design and
    prototyping problems in manufacturing may delay completion.

[ERE Activities]{.underline}---A working group on environmental
observatories has been formed. All observations system groups are
invited and they will also have representation from all directorates and
offices at NSF. Observatories issues include cyberinfrastructure,
environmental permitting, and synergies between systems. ERE has also
completed a new version of *Complex Environmental Systems.*

[Other GEO News]{.underline}---NSF played an important role in the
aftermath of the December 26 Sumatran earthquake and tsunami. NSF-funded
investigators provided immediate ground truth data on size and location
of the earthquake. SGER grants were awarded for immediate travel to
Indonesia to obtain ground truth data on inundation. The tsunami
expressed a very important call for the federal government to do
something globally to predict earthquakes. In place already are IRIS and
the Global Seismic Network. NSF premiered a new website with enhanced
capabilities for the scientific community as well as the general public.

Dr. Leinen noted a new publication, *Debating Design-From Darwin to DNA*
that discussed creationism, intelligent design, and evolution.
Intelligent design argues that specific biological organisms are too
complicated to have evolved with time, so it is suggested that there had
to be a design. She said that the science community should ensure that
the science perspective remains in the forefront of this important
debate.

***Discussion:***

-   Dr. Cheryl Peach asked if the Environment Research and Education
    (ERE) element has any planned activity to coordinate education with
    the observation committee. Dr. Leinen responded that the committee
    is now drafting a paper addressing crosscutting in education.

-   Dr. Susan Brantley suggested that the Coupled Biological Cycles
    solicitation, which is being written, should incorporate biological
    sciences and polar programs.

-   Dr. Raymond Jeanloz said he sees colleagues (i.e., university
    professors) distancing themselves from evolution questions and asks
    if there are structures in place to maximize the leverage of the
    science. Dr. Leinen responded that there is a Subcommittee in the
    Presidential Science Advisor's office that may be involved in that
    area.

## Reports on the Divisions

### Division of Atmospheric Sciences

Dr. Jarvis Moyers, Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM),
highlighted advances in facilities:

-   High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental
    Research (HIAPER);---Dr. Moyers described the mission and payload
    capabilities and said that full science missions will be conducted
    by the end of FY 2005.

-   Advanced Modular Incoherent Scatter Radar (AMISR)---Dr. Moyers
    described the system as the "the next generation of upper atmosphere
    observatories", a transportable upper atmospheric radar. The total
    construction cost will be \$44 M over 4 years. It is a modern
    based-array system that can be relocated anywhere in the world.

-   Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and
    Climate (COSMIC)---Six satellites were launched in FY 2005. Three
    instruments (GPS receiver, TIP, and Tri-band beacon) are being used
    for global observations and climate modeling.

-   National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has made great
    advances including community models such as Community Climate System
    Model (CCSM), Integrated Space Weather Model, Weather Research and
    Forecast Model (WRF), and Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model
    (WACCM). These models have demonstrated increased complexity over
    time as knowledge and computational capabilities have grown.

Other ATM activities include the Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF).
Protocols are being established to make modeling more portable, enabling
modelers to take full advantage of high-end computers. This joint
project includes NCAR, NASA, NOAA, MIT, and the Los Alamos National
Laboratory.

Current ATM Center programs include the Center for Integrated Space
Weather Modeling (CISM); Collaborative Adaptive Sensing of the
Atmosphere (CASA); and Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery
(LEAD). CISM is not only tackling topical fundamental research problems
but also educational diversity and technology transfer. CASA is a
collaborative involving the Directorate for Engineering (ENG),
universities, and industry. Its purpose is to make sensors smart and
able to optimize sampling strategies. LEAD is funded at \$4 M per year.
Its primary goal is to provide the information technology needed to
allow people (scientists, students, and operational practitioners) and
technologies (models, sensors, and data mining) to interact with
weather.

### Division of Earth Sciences

Dr. Herman Zimmerman, Director, Division of Earth Sciences (EAR),
provided an update on EAR's activities, and noted that the Division is
now organized in two sections: Surface Earth Processes; and Deep Earth
Processes.

The National Academy Committee on Basic Research Opportunities in Earth
Sciences (BROES) produced a decadal report that provided new directions
to the Division. Other directions are suggested by *NSF Geosciences
Beyond 2000 (GEO 2000)*, the AC/GEO, Grand Challenges in Environmental
Sciences (NRC), community workshops and planning meetings, and
interagency groups such as the US Global Change Research Program (GCRP).
Some of the opportunities suggested include:

-   Integrative studies of the critical zone

-   Geobiology; research on Earth and planetary materials

-   Investigations of the continents; studies of the Earth's deep
    interior

-   Planetary science

-   Long-term support of investigator-driven science

-   Mechanisms for multidisciplinary research

-   Instrumentation and facilities

-   Education

Projects continuing over the last 5 years include:

-   EarthScope---an integrated geophysical and geodetic observational
    system for exploring continental structure, dynamics, and evolution.
    The EarthScope facility includes the US Seismic Array (USArray), the
    San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD), the Plate Boundary
    Observatory (PBO), an Education and Outreach Network (EON), and the
    Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   BioEarth---the fusion of the biologic and Earth sciences

-   Freshwater---establishing a quantitative and predictive
    understanding of the Earth's hydrologic processes. It is the
    interface of hydrology, ecology, and human interactions.

-   GeoInformatics---application of information technologies to the
    Earth sciences by trying to promote easy access from the Earth
    science community. A key project is the GEOsciences Network (GEON),
    a supercomputer located in San Diego, which is able to handle large
    databases.

-   EAR Centers---relatively large-scale community research efforts that
    can be managed within a single EAR program. The Center for
    Computational Infrastructure for Geodynamics (CIG) has just been
    launched. It will provide open source tools and codes for the
    community.

### Division of Ocean Sciences

The Division of Ocean Sciences comprises Physical, Biological, and
Chemical Ocean Sciences. Mr. Larry Clark, Director, Division of Ocean
Sciences, noted that the division must provide a balance between ocean
science and ocean facilities, and because the research in the Division
is becoming more interdisciplinary, there are greater budget
constraints.

Current significant Division activity includes:

-   Oceans and Human Health, a collaboration between NSF and the
    National Institute of Health (NIH)

-   The Marine Geosciences Section's focused RIDGE and MARGINS programs
    that bring together biology, geology, chemistry and physics for
    interdisciplinary study

-   The Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV), a collaboration of the
    Joint Oceanographic Institutions (JOI), Texas A&M University,
    Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

-   Three new regional research vessels in conjunction with the US Navy
    (midsize ships)

-   Upgrading a new academic ship for 3-D seismic capability

-   A new human occupied vehicle (HOV) to replace ALVIN

-   Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence (COSEE) to develop
    catalytic multidimensional partnerships between research and
    education.

The Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), an MREFC project, is proposed
to meet the need for studies requiring long-term observations. It will
provide a network with high bandwidth communications and electrical
power. The three primary components are: global-scale moored buoy
systems; regional-scale seafloor fiber optic cable system; and coastal
observatories. OOI will provide the ability to investigate processes at
the scales at which they occur.

Mr. Clark noted that the cost of operating ships is higher, partly
because of the increased cost of fuel and added security. Also permits
are required that are very expensive. Funding from other agencies has
been essentially flat.

######## **Discussion** 

-   Dr. Roger Smith asked if there was any limit to the kind of research
    OCE can do as compared to the Office of Polar Programs (OPP). Dr.
    Michael Reeve said that OPP does not have ships of their own so they
    use the R/V Alpha Helix and other ships and icebreakers that belong
    to OCE. OCE also participates with OPP internationally.

-   Dr. Mary Silver asked about the costs and specific requirements of
    security such as the use of guards and keypads to check incoming
    vessels. Mr. Clark said the costs depend on the location. The Coast
    Guard determines the vulnerability of a facility and the
    requirements change as the threat changes.

## Guiding Principles for Shaping the GEO Portfolio

Dr. Leinen said the document, "Guiding Principles for Shaping the GEO
Portfolio", was developed as a result of several GEO retreats held to
discuss, among other issues, how the Directorate should be managed under
a flat or a decreasing budget. The GEO Portfolio is defined as the sum
of Division programs, GEO-wide programs, and the GEO portion of NSF-wide
programs. Its goals are to advance science, maintain the health of the
scientific community, and preserve and invest appropriately in tools and
facilities.

Dr. Brune said that the document has been through several iterations and
is now in draft form and he asked the AC/GEO to review it and make
suggestions so that a final version could be prepared.

######## **Discussion**

-   Dr. Smith said that narrowing the focus in order to cover the
    budgetary constraints may be successful, but he wouldn't want it to
    restrict research. Dr. Leinen said that's why the guidelines include
    the words, "Provide adequate resources".

-   Dr. Robert Harris said all sections should include the words
    "innovative and new" because research should not just include ideas
    that were proposed years ago. Good work may have to be curtailed in
    order to fund new ideas. Dr. Leinen said that there was a lot of
    discussion at the retreat about the importance of continuing to hold
    workshops as a means of coming up with innovative ideas.

-   Dr. Sharon Mosher suggested that the second goal should be changed
    to read "Maintain and [enhance]{.underline} the health of the
    scientific community".

-   Dr. Detrick asked how the document would be used. Mr. Clark said
    that it would depend on the audience, but thinks the document would
    be internal to NSF.

-   Dr. Jeanloz said he thought there should be a section on "How Basic
    Geosciences Serves the Nation". Another member said the emphasis
    should be on long-term strategic research, which has to be shaped by
    the community and the country. Dr. Leinen agreed and added that was
    a wonderful observation since the absolute foundation of the
    scientific content should be shaped by the community and the
    country. Dr. Moyers added that the Directorate should be governed by
    societal implications, for example, studies on the weather.

Dr. Brune encouraged the groups to make comments for revising the draft
and submitting.

**ACTION:** Members should review the draft "Guiding Principles for
Shaping the GEO Portfolio" and make suggestions for changes.

## GEO Proposal Success Rate

Dr. Leinen related that the National Science Board (NSB) has recently
focused on the success rates of proposal submitted to each directorate.
GEO's success rate is at 35 percent, the second highest in all of NSF;
however the rate varies within the different sections of GEO and often
is related to the way the programs and solicitations are structured.
Other factors are the number of proposals submitted and the size of the
awards. The success rate is not only of interest to the community but
also affects the workload of the reviewers and the reviewer return rate.

In EAR, 25 percent of the PIs usually submit more than three proposals
over time in order to win one grant. In OCE, 20 to 40 percent of PIs
require more than three submissions. In ATM, only 1-12 percent of the
PIs require more than 3 submissions.

Dr. Leinen said they are trying to find the best possible way for PIs to
get an award so that their workload and the Division's workload are
minimized. She opened the floor for discussion.

***Discussion***

-   Dr. Jeanloz asked for a comparison between NSF-wide and the GEO
    directorate in numbers of submissions per PI. Dr. Leinen said for
    all of NSF, the rate is about 2.6 submissions

-   Dr. Moyers said that the success rate for PIs applying for grants at
    NSF is about 40 percent foundation-wide; 60 percent never get an
    award.

-   Dr. Detrick asked if NSF is funding fewer higher-ranked proposals.
    Dr. Leinen responded that the proposals are ranked and there have
    been statistics on how many rated "Excellent" and "Good" have been
    declined. But since some of the PIs are only counted when they are
    the lead PI, and not included otherwise, it is very difficult to
    track.

**ACTION:** Members asked to have more information on ranking of
proposals across divisions. (Dr. Leinen and Mr. Will Smith)

## The meeting was adjourned at noon for the Division Subcommittee meetings. The Education and Diversity Subcommittee convened at 4:00 p.m.

## Education and Diversity Subcommittee

Dr. Cheryl Peach noted that the main purpose of this Subcommittee is to
consider the contributions of the GEO education programs, mindful of the
needs to foster diversity and to improve the awareness of the importance
of geosciences to the nation. The hope is to reach children at the
earliest levels, including K-12.

There were three topics on the Subcommittee agenda:

-   A report from the Geosciences Education Working Group

-   Education and Outreach for major projects

-   Education and Outreach at IRIS and EarthScope

-   Education and Outreach at IODP and OOP/ORION.

### Geosciences Education Working Group

Dr. Jacqueline Huntoon, Program Director for Diversity and Education,
GEO, said the Working Group grew out of a charge to make a detailed
analysis of four programs: Geosciences Education (GeoEd), the Global
Opportunities to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program, Awards to
Facilitate Geosciences Education (AFGE) and Opportunities for Enhancing
Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG). The goal of the report is to make
recommendations for improvement. Some recommendations are:

-   Members of the geosciences community must be proactive in
    disseminating information about the geosciences to the media.

-   Geosciences must be taught well and broadly in formal settings at
    all grade levels as well as in diverse informal settings including
    museums, parks, and via the Internet.

-   The geosciences education community needs to continue to make use of
    education research conducted in other science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

The Working Group said that there has been a lack of an integrated
approach to education and they felt it was important for professional
societies to become more involved in long term coordinated education
efforts. Also, they felt that there is not enough evaluation of
education projects conducted with GEO funds.

Dr. Peach said there is room for many different approaches. Having an
isolated education activity associated with a research project would
satisfy the broadening participation requirement at NSF. Dr. Jeanloz
suggested that, in the context of NSF's contribution, education could
only be valuable if it comes from the research community and includes
elements of discovery.

In reply to a question about why geoscience education is not handled by
the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR), Dr. Huntoon
said that in the past geoscientists have had difficulty obtaining
funding from EHR, perhaps due to the differing standards and
terminology, as well as the relatively small impact of geoscience
education projects (as compared to projects that focus on chemistry,
math or physics). The AFGE was created to help them learn how to conduct
education projects and write successful EHR proposals.

Regarding the recommendations, AC/GEO members thought there were too
many bulleted items in the Executive Summary of the report and that
several could to be consolidated. Dr. Brune suggested that the working
group revise the recommendations to make it a more succinct and
effective document. Dr. Huntoon noted that this document could serve as
a roadmap for the next several years.

### ACTION: Dr. Peach will coordinate development of a final document based on the working group's report. Education and Outreach for Major Projects 

Dr. Peach noted that several of the GEO major projects, including the
Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), the Integrated
Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), EarthScope and the Ocean Observations
Initiative/Ocean Research Interactive Observatory Networks (OOP/ORION),
are or will be valuable in leveraging important education and outreach
activities for the geosciences. As an example she noted that IRIS has
had considerable experience in its 5-year existence.

Dr. Peach introduced Dr. John Taber, Education Director of the (IRIS), a
consortium of U.S. universities whose members have research programs in
seismology, and invited him to make a presentation to the Committee on
IRIS programs in Education and Outreach.

### IRIS Education and Outreach 

Dr. Taber noted that IRIS has been in existence for the past 20 years,
but began an education and outreach program 5 years ago. Its goals are
to provide data, instruction materials, and analysis tools for teachers.
Some of the education outreach activities are:

-   Museum exhibits \-- major displays are at the Smithsonian Museum of
    Natural History in Washington, and the American Museum of Natural
    History in New York. There is also a traveling exhibit and short
    science videos that appear on TV

-   A web site that shows a seismic monitor, provides access to seismic
    data, and provides interactive exercises

-   Electronic Encyclopedia of Earthquakes, a collaboration with the
    Digital Library for Earth System Education (DLESE)

-   Publications and posters for distribution to teachers throughout the
    U.S \-- over 50,000 posters have been distributed.

-   IRIS/Seismological Society of America (SSA) Distinguished Lecture
    Series

-   Professional development for teachers and college professors that
    provide training, workshops for teachers, and materials to other
    IRIS institutions to run their own workshops

-   IRIS seismographs for schools have been distributed to about 100
    schools and have workshops for teachers so they know how to use
    them.

-   Colorado School of Mines Seismograph Design Project---350 freshmen
    engineers were given the task of designing an inexpensive
    seismometer for use in schools

-   Summer Internships---to provide an introduction to research or
    seismic instrumentation for undergraduates. Over 80 percent of all
    interns have gone on to graduate school.

-   Educational affiliates---to promote undergraduate earth science
    education. It has 11 members ranging from minority serving community
    colleges to full universities. The first sabbatical is now underway
    for an affiliate member at an IRIS institution

A U.S. Educational Seismology Network is in the planning stage to
provide a national framework for the advancement of seismology.

A proposal for the next five years includes expansion of existing
activities, museum exhibits, and the professional development of
teachers. The plan is also to promote the collection and use of seismic
data, increase outreach to IRIS consortium members, promote diversity,
and expand international association. New initiatives are to increase
visualization and animation of seismic data, improve video products for
major media distribution, and provide an online graduate level
professional development course in seismology for teachers

### EarthScope Education and Outreach 

The plan prepared in FY 2002 forms the basis for EarthScope education
and outreach. Key recommendations were to have a national office and
develop local alliances. An education and outreach proposal to be funded
by NSF was submitted by the EarthScope office. There is a process
underway to form an Advisory Committee.

### Education and Outreach at IODP and OOI/ORION

Dr. Peach noted that IRIS is a good example of a well-developed program
such as reaching out to the teaching community and developing lecture
series. In the IODP, funds have to be split between education and
outreach. Efforts in education will include metrics and testable
outcomes. The outreach portion of the program will come from IODP, but
the educational components will come from the individual countries
involved.

In OOI an Education and Public Awareness Committee, is being developed
in conjunction with the ORION project. Dr. Peach suggested that these
programs look at the existing programs and follow their progress.

In response to a question about the distribution of funds in the
Geoscience Education and Diversity programs, Dr. Huntoon said that 75
percent of the funds have been spent on teacher training.

Dr. Peach reported on discussions about whether the Education and
Diversity Subcommittee should meet with the GEO education staff in
advance of the next AC/GEO meeting. Dr. Brune suggested the Subcommittee
issue be revisited at the end of the meeting.

####### **ACTION:** When developing their education and outreach efforts, MREFCs should consider existing education and outreach efforts in ongoing major programs.

####### The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

####### ***Thursday, May 12, 2005***

# Plenary Session 2

## Division Subcommittee Reports

Dr. Brune reconvened the Committee in plenary session at 8:30 a.m. and
invited reports on the Division Subcommittee meetings that were held the
previous day.

### Division of Atmospheric Sciences (ATM) 

Dr. Smith summarized the ATM division discussions that focused on
facilities, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on ATM research
funding, success rates in the Division, and the International Polar Year
(IPY).

The following updates on facilities were noted:

-   The first face of AMISR is being built in Fairbanks, Alaska. It
    should be completed in early 2006. The next two faces will be built
    in Resolute Bay, Canada. The project is slightly behind schedule due
    to manufacturing delays.

-   HIAPER (High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for
    Environmental Research) is expected to have payload pods available
    soon to experimenters. There are 15 community instruments under
    construction. Database facilities are ready to receive data.

-   COSMIC (Constellation Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere
    and Climate), the Global Positioning System (GPS) radio occultation
    satellite project, has completed the design of orbits to give
    uniform global coverage.

-   The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) supercomputer,
    IBM BlueGene/L, will improve power use without loss of performance
    by using many slower processes.

-   The Earth System Modeling Framework is a method to employ a
    collection of algorithms with facilities for swap out and exchange
    is led by NASA, with NSF and other agencies partnering.

-   The LEAD project provides for agility in real-time configuration of
    sensors. It is broadening access to digital resources used by ATM.

The NAS study was suggested by the National Science Board (NSB) to
assess the balance in the funding portfolio. The Committee is due to
issue an interim report in late summer.

Success rates for GEO have been better than Foundation-wide because of
the focus in the announcements and the low specificity of programs. The
proposal process in ATM is designed to make awards rather than
declinations. They prefer a strong program officer model, which avoids
panels, limits proposal recycling, and avoids deadlines where possible.

It was noted in the discussion on IPY that the U.S. is behind other
countries. It was suggested the there may be funds from other areas of
NSF and that the IPY secretariat should be informed of ongoing research
at NSF. It may then be possible to merge NSF research into projects
already underway at the IPY, since the IPY provides an international
context for research projects.

Dr. Jeanloz asked about the delay in AMISR and was informed that there
were setbacks that have now been resolved. Also, manufacturing 12,000
units was formidable. NSF has provided many courses in management to
help managers inexperienced in handling very large facilities. Dr.
Jeanloz agreed that GEO seems to be transitioning into large projects of
\$10M to \$100M. Dr. Leinen said projects of this magnitude are very
collaborative but the program manager (the scientist) involved must be
the one to manage the project because he understands the research.

### Division of Ocean Sciences

Dr. Karen Von Damm said there were brief discussions of three items: the
ongoing search for a permanent Division Director; the Committee Of
Visitors (COV) on Facilities; and research for next summer. More lengthy
discussions were of the Chicxulub Project, which is a seismic site
survey in Mexican waters; the success rate of proposals; and facilities
support for items such as ships, MREFCs, and mid-range infrastructure.

The Chicxulub Project went to sea in January-February 2005 after facing
significant Mexican environmental concerns. Permits, clearances, and
interactions with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) caused
significant problems, though the project was successfully completed. The
Subcommittee suggested that OCE should conduct meetings to educate the
community on the changes in operation that might alleviate such problems
in the future. Since late 2002, there has been an increase in the number
of delayed or truncated cruises. The Division is hiring an environmental
officer to help the situation.

The second main topic of discussion was success rate. Numbers for core
proposals have been lower than those of special initiatives. OCE had a
25 percent decline in the success rate between 1999 and 2004 but the
budget over the last five years has gone up 30 percent. Infrastructure
costs have gone up about 40 percent. There was also a discussion on
managing submissions for better quality.

The third item discussed was facilities. The OCE MREFCs include the
Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV), Ocean Observatories Initiative
(OOI), and the Alaska Area Research Vessel (AARV). Three regional ships
are in process. Mr. Clark said there are severe budget constraints and
there is a possibility of laying up ships to maintain the budget. There
was a discussion on delaying OOI by one year but the Subcommittee agreed
that it is important to move it forward. The group discussed the
importance of communicating with the community. Dr. Larry Mayer will
prepare a letter to the community to advise them on the current status
and what is planned for the future.

Dr. Brune suggested bringing up the topic of funding limitations with
Dr. Bement later.

**ACTION:** Dr. Mayer will prepare a letter to members of the ocean
community advising them the status of OCE status and plans.

### Division of Earth Sciences

Dr. John Wilson summarized the EAR divisional meeting. There was a brief
report from Dr. Zimmerman, Director, Division of Earth Sciences.
Discussions centered on success rates, the Program Officer workload, and
EarthScope. Dr. Zimmerman reported that there are three new staff
members addressing the increased workload. The success rate is good, but
they would like to see it increased. EAR has implemented a program
whereby PIs have to wait one year (or skip one cycle) before submitting
another proposal. This resulted in a 30 percent decrease in the number
of proposals. They also looked at other ways to limit proposals or
increase success but none seemed appropriate. EAR receives twice as many
proposals as the other divisions in GEO. The Subcommittee was concerned
that if they try to increase their success rate it may have a negative
effect instead. EarthScope is on time, on line, producing data, and has
great community interest. EAR is looking at opportunities to leverage
other groups at NSF in order to get more funding since the current
funding is at a lower rate than was expected.

**ACTION:** Subcommittee meetings should be organized and planned
jointly by the Chair and the Division Director and agenda should be
distributed in advance.

## ACTION: In cooperation with OPP, GEO Divisions should review their plans for the International Polar Year (IPY).

## Other Issues

### Discussion of Success Rates

-   Dr. Leinen said that the AC/GEO is of great value because their
    advice is needed for content (what science should be funded). Dr.
    Bement, the NSB, and Congress are all challenging us on our success
    rate. She thinks the AC/GEO can help by telling Dr. Bement that
    GEO's success rate is good, and what needs revising are the
    solicitations so there are fewer proposals submitted, making the
    success rate higher.

-   Dr. Von Damm asked if NSF's success rate is being compared to other
    agencies. Dr. Clark said success rate has gone down by nearly one
    third in the past 8 years. There are many possible reasons such as
    other agencies encroaching our areas or other agencies having bigger
    budgets. NSF's large facilities create operation and management
    issues.

-   Dr. Mosher noted two different issues. Our practices are good and
    can't be changed without hurting the community and funds need to be
    increased. We could tell Dr. Bement our success rates are fine given
    the budgetary constraint or we could say our success rates are bad
    because we are discouraging people from submitting proposals.

-   Dr. Detrick pointed out that in talking with people at his
    institution and others, the success rate is impacting productivity
    because so much time is spent writing proposals and not doing
    science. It is not allowing young investigators to get grants. He
    agrees there is no simple solution. In an effort to please Congress
    we may try a simple fix that may hurt the community; however we
    ought to send the message to Dr. Bement that we are willing to help
    but there is no quick fix.

-   Dr. Wilson suggested there is a greater participation of colleges
    that didn't participate in the proposal process at NSF previously
    because young faculty is now going to those schools. Congress may
    react favorably if they knew that schools in their districts are
    doing research and are now applying to NSF for grants. Dr. Leinen
    said the top 100 universities have increased their proposals to NSF
    but she doesn't have specific data for GEO.

-   Dr. Jeanloz suggested implementing EAR's rule about PIs submitting
    only once a year. He noted that diversity is promoted by encouraging
    lower-ranked schools to submit proposals but that may skew the
    metric. Dr. Mosher suggested looking at the metrics and the ranking
    to see what constitutes an "excellent" rating. Often innovative
    proposals don't get funded even when they are excellent because they
    are risky.

Dr. Leinen encouraged the AC to explore the issue of success rates and
related funding issues with Dr. Bement.

### ITR Committee Of Visitors Report

Dr. Steve Meacham said the Information Technology Research COV reviewed
the ITR competition FY 2001-FY 2003. The COV consisted of 35 members
with a varied geographic distribution and minority representation. The
COV considered three grant sizes: small (up to \$500K total for three
years; medium (up to \$1M total for 5 years); and large (up to \$3M per
year for five years). The success rate for all years combined was at
about 20 percent. Most of the awards during the three-year period were
from CISE (68 percent) with GEO at about 9 percent.

The COV discussed the priority with ITR Program Directors, read ITR
awards and declines, and talked with the ADs about their
recommendations. Some of the concerns of the COV about the processes and
management were:

-   A problem of assembling reviewers because almost the entire
    community was submitting proposals (over 2000 per year)

-   Ensuring that all proposers, reviewers, and panels addressed both
    broader impact and broadening participation

-   How to continue evaluation and oversight of continuing proposals

-   The diversity in students, leadership and participants

-   Many tools were developed and best practices evolved but there is
    concern about how their impacts are evaluated and how they will be
    maintained when the ITR priority ends.

-   Sharing the experiences with others at NSF since there was such a
    great emphasis on interdisciplinary work.

The COV also looked at the contributions to software design,
infrastructure, high end computing, IT workforce and the socioeconomic
impact of IT, and were very impressed with the outcome. The COV noted
also that interdisciplinary research was encouraged in the three years
studied.

The COVs advice was that future large initiatives like ITR should have
appropriate, assigned staff; an integrated website of the projects;
compromises between success rates and funding level/cuts; and a means of
passing on what the PIs learned about the management of large
interdisciplinary, multi-institutional projects.

Dr. Detrick spoke about the concern about how ITR will be sustained when
the ITR priority ends. Most of the COV members agreed that there is a
need to continue discussions between CISE and GEO. Some felt that the
funds should be kept in the domain science but others disagreed and said
that the link that has been established between CISE and the domain
sciences should be maintained.

Dr. Jeanloz said that they should reinforce the message that
cross-discipline has been effective.

Dr. Suzanne Iacono, CISE program manager, noted that CISE has
reorganized and there is now a science and informatics cluster that is
an outgrowth of ITR. It is a follow-on that is well funded and impacts
CISE and other directorates. Geoscientists are very dependent on the
computational community and that community gets a lot of attention from
Congress. There is a question of where to submit proposals when ITR
ends.

Dr. Leinen agreed that there is a concern but said that CISE had taken
on the changes in computer science due to collaborations with the domain
sciences and that resulted in the establishment of the Division for
Shared Cyberinfrastructure (SCI). There were active discussions going on
in CISE about middleware and computational science at a recent retreat.
She noted that Dr. Bement is very interested in the effect that ITR has
had on the community and understands that more investments will be
needed in the directorates for cyberinfrastructure. It is a very high
priority for the Foundation.

Dr. Leinen suggested the AC/GEO bring up the issue of
cyberinfrastructure in its discussion with Dr. Bement.

### AC/ERE Report

Dr. John Wilson, AC/GEO representative member on the AC/ERE, reported on
the work of that committee. He noted that AC/ERE has been strongly
associated with Biocomplexity and that it has updated *Complex
Environmental Systems (CES), Pathways to the Future.* This update places
a great emphasis on Coupled Natural and Human Systems, which cover the
full range of natural, social, behavioral, economic, and physical
sciences and engineering. Opportunities suggested include the following
topics:

-   Linked Observing Systems for Enhanced Research Capacity

-   Multi-Scale Science and the Human Context

-   Water and Complex Environmental Systems

-   New Generation in Environmental Research and Education

-   Knowledge for Use: Effective Communication of Complex Environmental
    Systems Research.

The AC/ERE has identified four mechanisms that NSF could use to support
improved environmental research and education: varied award sizes,
"glue" grants, synthesis opportunities, and better data accessibility.
The AC/ERE commended NSF for progress made in supporting highly
interdisciplinary environmental research and education and urge them to
continue by building capacity in coupling human and natural systems, in
interdisciplinary research and training, and in observing systems, data
integration, and scaling. They also encourage NSF to consider water as
an important theme, try to create synergy among programs, increase
public understanding, improve environmental decision-making, and promote
a more diverse workforce.

Dr. Leinen said the document was well received by the ADs because it
identified good topics for study but also because it offered realistic
approaches. The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was
favorably impressed with it, and it was presented to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Dr. Marburger, OSTP, wrote to the NSB, who
liked its focus and suggestions. It was also circulated at professional
meetings and to the House of Representatives Committee on Water. There
is a Subcommittee on Water Availability that produced a report and
another report on water quality is underway. The reports are aimed at
OMB, OSTP, and the President and will be followed up by an
implementation plan. AC/ERE activities will be an important addition.

Dr. Wilson said that the AC/ERE is still working on water-related
issues. He noted that it is an appropriate theme for development. A
paper on water will be completed by the next AC/ERE meeting. They also
had a workshop on water, and the report will be available soon. Other
groups have held workshops on sensors, cyberinfrastructure, and
integrated observatories. The AC/ERE suggested bringing communities
together to see whether CLEANER (Collaborative Large-scale Engineering
Analysis Network for Environmental Research**)** and CUAHSI (Consortium
of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science, Inc.) could
work together.

Dr. Leinen was asked about the progress of the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON). She responded that NEON was approved by the
NSB three years ago, as part of the FY2004 budget, but it was not funded
as an MREFC at that time. However, the Directorate for Biological
Sciences funded some of its activities. The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) published a report about what approach should be taken. NSF has a
NEON office, which advises on how to design and fund such a program, and
there is a plan, which will be implemented as soon as it is funded
adequately.

### Global Observations

Dr. Thomas Spence, Senior Associate for Science Programs and
Coordination, reported on GEO's involvement in earth observing systems.
GEO is providing innovations in observational techniques, such as new
sensors and sensor networks and new deployment strategies and
methodologies; novel systems and techniques in cyberinfrastructure and
communication; and data utilization (model development and evolution).

International events related to global observations include:

-   G-8 discussion at Evian in June 2003

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   First Earth Summit in Washington, DC in July 2003 to discuss the
    Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)---Ad hoc Group on
    Earth Observations 1,2,3,4

-   Second Earth Summit in Tokyo in April 2004---Ad hoc Group on Earth
    Observations 5,6

-   Third Earth Summit held in Brussels in February 2005

-   Group on Earth Observations - I met in Geneva in May 2005 to
    establish an Executive Committee and other governance principles.

After the May 2005 meeting in Geneva, the Group on Earth Observations
was established as the governing structure. It elected members of the
Executive Committee and a Work Team to plan activities for 2005-07. The
Group on Earth Observations now has over 60 nations as members and 40
participating organizations. The next meeting will be held in Geneva in
December 2005.

GEOSS is a distributed system of systems to improve coordination of
strategies and observation systems; link all platforms; identify gaps in
our global capacity; and facilitate exchange of data. Benefits of the
system include helping society to make informed decisions about natural
and human-induced disasters, climate variability, and terrestrial
coastal and marine ecosystems. A strategic plan has just been published
and an implementation plan has been developed.

National events related to the establishment of a U.S. observing system
include:

-   An interagency group planed the First Earth Summit in the spring
    2003

-   A community workshop held in June 2004

-   Strategic plan for the Integrated Earth Observing System (IEOS)
    published in April 2005

-   Six near-term opportunities identified

-   A second public engagement workshop will be held in May 2005 for
    implementation issues.

While there are many opportunities for improvements in observations, the
real challenge is to identify observational requirements, marshal
adequate resources, and integrate the observational information in a way
useful to society.

NSF supports several major observing systems that have the potential to
make major contributions to IEOS and GEOSS and also supports the science
and engineering research that leads to innovative instruments.

## Discussion of Issues

Dr. Jeanloz said that there is a huge benefit for NSF to encourage
making data publicly available. Dr. Leinen said that NSF has been at the
forefront of making data freely available. She noted that the
observational data would provide an important resource to look at earth
processes longer and more thoroughly.

Dr. Smith noted that NSF's primary product is intellect-based rather
than databased. IEOS provides an opportunity for NSF to do science and
we should focus on that. Dr. Smith agreed that NSF is in a good position
to add facilities to produce the data, but is not sure how much this
data is used.

Dr. Mosher asked if EarthScope is funded by the core science. Dr.
Zimmerman said that the domain science portion of EarthScope funding is
from EAR. When there is a flat budget, money is moved around more
conservatively. The budget is announced every year but plans are fixed
for many years in advance, so there is a constant flux as the budget
moves up or down.

Dr. Chavez asked if there is a way to track the cost of the science
alone. Dr. Zimmerman answered that even though there is a complete plan
including expenses, he has to react and make changes based on the actual
budget.

Dr. Leinen noted that construction costs of the MREFCs are not charged
to GEO, but the operating costs and the science costs are. We cannot
commit to 10-year projects without a real commitment of funds. However
we are operating and maintaining the facilities in the most economical
manner. NSF has contracted for an external study of the costs and the
results will be very important. Dr. Leinen suggested that there may be
other ways to fund the MREFCs and that will have to be investigated.

Dr. Smith said he has seen management plans, but we have to look
carefully at the science plans as well. Dr. Zimmerman noted that
EarthScope is generating important data. He added that there is an
Advisory Committee to assure that the program is on track, supports good
science, and is transformative.

## Outgoing Members Presentation

A tradition of the AC/GEO is to hear presentations by outgoing members.
Drs. Chavez, Mosher, and Silver were invited to make brief
presentations.

**Dr. Chavez** made a presentation on ***"The Impact of Global Change on
the Biology and Chemistry of the Ocean"***. He observed that atmospheric
CO2 is increasing and entering the ocean. Approximately 33 percent of
the CO2 emitted ends up in the ocean, causing 1 megatons of CO2 to enter
the ocean every hour. The result is a decrease in the oceanic pH.

Dr. Chavez concluded that time series are critical for quantifying
natural and anthropogenic change. There are strong natural cycles such
as El Nino, but there are also multi decadal/regime shifts that have
strong impacts, both positive and negative on climate, ocean physics,
marine ecosystems, and biogeochemical cycling. This highlights the need
for global and integrated ocean observing systems.

Dr. Chavez started a time series in 1982 off the coast of Peru just
before a major El Nino event. Water samples showed that water
temperatures were significantly warmer during El Nino, which resulted in
a decrease in fish catch. He has continued to conduct time series
observations in Monterey, CA. In that region, northwesterly winds cause
similar biological changes, and the ocean became warmer.

He related changes at both sites: an abundance of flying squid in Peru,
but a decrease in California demonstrating that ocean temperature cycles
have an impact on fish. Organisms that are at about 400 meters and
shifts in the deep-sea community are affected by climate and water
temperature.

**Dr. Mosher** made a presentation on ***"Scientists' Involvement in
Public Policy"***. She has noticed that scientists seem to be unwilling
to devote adequate time to critical issues in public policy. She
suggests that science is in a time of crisis. NSF has had its first
budget decrease in 20 years, while science research budgets have
increased in other countries. Research and development spending over the
last few decades has been flat, while budgets for medical research have
doubled.

Scientific credibility has been challenged. The theory of evolution is
being questioned and some seek to use broader definitions of evolution
\-- not limiting it to natural explanations but allowing 'supernatural'
explanations. Forty states are considering changing the theory to
include a 'supernatural' component.

In the area of climate change, challenges are being directed at the
scientific consensus that climate change is being driven by human
influences.

Our credibility as scientists is being questioned and we must work
together with other scientists to present a united front and alert
Congress to the importance of the growth of science in the 21^st^
century.

Earth science research provides answers to major science and societal
problems. Natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions occur but we will
never find out if they are preventable or more predictable if we do not
study them. When polled, 70 percent of the public says they support
basic research and appreciate new discoveries and the economic benefits
that may result from them. Remarkably, the U.S. spends only 2 cents of
each dollar on science and technology, but 50 percent of all bills
before Congress have a scientific component. Therefore, she stated that
scientists must educate Congress and tell them that the public is in
favor of scientific research. Congress does listen to its constituents.
Dr. Mosher urges the scientist to contact their congressmen to thank
them personally when they get a grant, provide photo opportunities,
visit their representatives locally or in Washington, write letters
supporting science issues, talk to the media, and educate the public.

**Dr. Silver** presented a talk entitled ***"An Oceanographer's
Dilemma"***. She is concerned that contaminants in the ocean are causing
illness and death to the species that inhabit the ocean. For example, a
toxin that causes Amnesic Shellfish Disease affecting mussels, can cause
vomiting, diarrhea, and dizziness when ingested. Large doses can cause
memory loss or even death. The toxin was discovered after it caused a
wildlife kill.

Anchovies and sardines are important prey for birds. In 1991 there was a
large number of bird deaths due to a toxin-producing algae. When
examined, the birds had anchovies in their stomachs. The toxin is
usually restricted to upwelling systems and is unusual because it does
not stay in the system and is only dangerous when it is in the digestive
system. Krill, humpback whales, blue whales, and sea lions also have
these toxins.

Dr. Silver questions why it is that we suddenly see these organisms in
our fish. One answer is that we humans are doing it by polluting the
ocean as would an invasive species. We are also monitoring waters more
than we used to so we are picking up more toxic species. Systems and
monitors are being designed to identify species in the ocean and locate
them (species-specific arrays sensors). In coastal waters, four toxic
species have been identified.

Dr. Silver concluded that research on various species is important.
Humans may be changing the species by changing the growth environment,
introducing new species, and altering predator communities. Researchers
need new tools/sensors to detect species of interest.

## Preparation for Visit from NSF Director

The AC/GEO prepared for Dr. Bement's visit by discussing a number of
potential topics:

-   Where does NSF stand with the new House Appropriations Committee?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What strategies do you suggest for measuring success rates? Would
    other metrics be more acceptable? If so, how should they be used and
    assessed? Will a Division be penalized if they don't have a good
    success rate?

-   What about the future of cyberinfrastructure not that ITR has ended?

-   How will decisions be made in the future about MREFCs, considering
    the decrease in funds? Will we be able to continue the ones we
    already have and also build new ones?

-   What can be done about the fuel costs for ships and ship facilities
    run by NSF since OCE provides the funds, and the cost of supporting
    ships is \$42 M out of a total funding of \$80M to OCE?

-   Is EHR's decrease in funding permanent? Will that change the amount
    of research in education that EHR will fund? Elementary and
    secondary schools were most affected but EPSCOR (Experimental
    Program To Stimulate Competitive Research) was not. Curriculum
    development at the graduate level was cut and the math/science
    partnership was moved to the Department of Education. How is this
    likely to affect GEO?

-   What is GEO's role in the IPY?

## Visit with the NSF Director

Dr. Brune welcomed Dr. Arden Bement, Director, NSF, to the AC/GEO
meeting.

Dr. Bement thanked the AC/GEO for their good work. He began with a
discussion of the NSF budget. He said it was a tough year but there is
strong advocacy for NSF in both the House and the Senate. He said he
hoped that the budget would be more than what the President requested.

He noted that NSF is trying to come to a consensus on managing the
future of cyberinfrastructure and everyone's role in high performance
computing. The Agency wants to provide the best computational facilities
possible and ensure widespread community access. Dr. Bement intends to
play a strong role in the administration of this element, but will be
assisted by a council made up of senior management in the Foundation.
There must be a high level of accountability. The intent is to present a
plan to the NSB so that it will be prepared for a discussion at its
August meeting. After the meeting, the plan will be distributed to the
community.

Regarding MREFCs, the current procedure is for NSB to prioritize those
that are not funded but remain in the queue. New projects are not
introduced until the current ones are in progress. The President's
budget request does not authorize any new starts but that recommendation
could be overruled by Congress. The NSB plan for facilities is expected
to be distributed later in May.

He noted that success rates are not a major problem for the GEO
Directorate. However success rates are a growing problem for NSF because
proposal submissions are increasing, while the budget is not. Although
the appropriations bill may out by June, there will still be a problem.
Proposal pressure has increased because there are many more
institutions, such as teaching colleges doing research. We are equipped
to process only 30,000 proposals per year and there is inadequate
staffing. Program Officers have no time for learning and studying
because of the shortage of staff and excessive proposal submission.

Dr. Bement encourages the AC/GEO to advocate for increases in the budget
to professional societies and Congress. The forecast for the next four
years is for the budget to remain flat unless there are continued
improvements in the economy, easing up on the war on terrorism, and
keeping control on entitlements. The federal budget for non-defense
research is at about 11 percent.

***Questions**:*

-   Dr. Brune commented on the flat budget over the next four years and
    asked if there is a potential for growth beyond that. Or is there a
    fundamental shift in priorities? How do you plan for future
    research?

Dr. Bement said that we have strong economic growth but low saving
growth. The Federal Government has dumped a lot of money into the
economy through defense and homeland security. If we can reduce the
deficit and the entitlements program, there will be more money
available. We spend one and half times more than the European Union on
research and development. Fewer people going into science in the U.S.,
but we have to maintain a strong global competitiveness. Our capacity
for growth in our research community is greater than our resource
growth. We have to pay attention to how we use this scarce resource and
allocate it carefully.

-   Dr. Peach asked if the large budget cuts to EHR are permanent. If
    so, does that increase expectations that research directorates will
    contribute directly to science education and diversity?

Dr. Bement said the Agency was able to protect some but not all of the
programs. He said that EHR needs a new vision, a new rationale, and new
strategic development. In the past, other directorates did not have
strong partnerships with EHR, but if we expect to increase the number of
scientists and engineers, we have to build our relationship with EHR.
The directorates, as part of their mission, have to increase the
expertise in their disciplines. It may be possible to transfer some of
the programs that were in EHR into other directorates. We also have to
maintain a bond with the Department of Education. NSF's share of the
Mathematics and Science Partnership has declined, but the Department of
Education's share has increased.

-   Dr. Smith asked if GEO has a role in IPY.

Dr. Bement responded that GEO has been a leader as exemplified by GEOSS,
ice stability studies, global warming in the Arctic, and in studies of
the polar region. GEO can contribute a lot because of their research
vessels and their observing systems, but the logistics issues will need
to be resolved. There will be a lot of data to be organized, curated,
stored, and analyzed. The OOI and the LTER will be important in this
effort.

-   Dr. Detrick expressed concern over how the interdisciplinary
    research that was so successful in ITR will continue to be fostered.

Dr. Bement agreed that ITR brought more focus to interdisciplinary
activities. There is a thirst for high-performing computers, but we also
have to invest in middleware. He expressed hope that our
cyberinfrastructure projects will make the most of community facilities.
Several universities that are not part of our super computer network are
now working more robustly and are recognizing opportunities for
cooperation.

-   Dr. Mosher asked Dr. Bement to expand a little more on the success
    rates. She noted that the AC/GEO thought that GEO was doing well.
    She suggested that some changes that GEO might make to improve
    success rates might make it more difficult for the community.
    Finally, why is so much attention paid to the success rate?

Dr. Bement said that GEO's success rate is very acceptable. NSF is at 20
percent overall and because of the present budget it probably will
remain at its current level.

-   Dr. Walter Lynn asked how money is proportioned. Does GEO's high
    success rate penalize them in terms of budget?

Dr. Bement said that GEO has done very well this year and will not
receive less money.

-   Dr. Chavez noted that there is excitement about the new major
    facilities, but there is also some anxiety about supporting the
    science in these facilities, in light of the budget constraints.

Dr. Bement answered that it is very important that the decisions for
these facilities are made in the relevant directorate. It will cost 20
percent of the development cost for very year of the operations. The
House Science Committee will not allow us to build facilities that we
cannot maintain. We may have to shut down some facilities in order to
create new ones. One example would be to retire old ships to operate new
ones.

Dr. Brune and the AC/GEO thanked Dr. Bement for meeting with the group.

## ACTION: AC/GEO members are encouraged to advocate increases in the science and research budgets via professional societies and Congress.

## AC/GEO Topics

### Follow-up to Dr. Bement's Visit

-   Dr. Leinen said that this was the first time Dr. Bement had
    articulated so clearly that NSF would have to partner with the
    Department of Education and other agencies. The Department of
    Education was not focused on science education 5 years ago, but now
    they are and Dr. Bement was aware of that shift. He also said until
    the big problems of the economy are solved there won't be money
    available for discretionary spending.

-   Dr. Detrick noticed Dr. Bement's great interest in distributed
    computing systems and not just hardware. Dr. Leinen noted his
    comment that we need to search for increased cycle capacity but we
    will have to invest with other agencies. Note he also talked about
    connectivity.

-   Dr. Leinen said the theme of Dr. Marburger's speech at the American
    Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) addressed the
    question: "What does the appetite for more capacity for science
    reflect"? Does it reflect the appetite of the public or just the
    scientists? Dr. Marburger posed the question to leverage the economy
    toward investments in science. If we see China and Japan invest in
    something, do we also invest in it? Do they really know something
    that we don't know? Dr. Bement spoke about them as our economic
    competitors.

-   Dr. Mosher noted Dr. Bement's remark that advocacy in professional
    societies and Congress does help. She reinforced his suggestion that
    AC/GEO members talk to professional societies and to Congress.

-   In the discussion about facilities, Dr. Wilson said that when these
    facilities were planned there was more money and that some of our
    facilities may become MREFCs (such as NEON), which would raise the
    costs even more.

-   Dr. Von Damm was impressed by Dr. Bement's knowledge about the
    facilities.

-   Dr. Moyers and Mr. Clark said they were pleased with Dr. Bement's
    comments about GEO's success rate but his response to whether high
    success rates would affect their funding was unclear.

### Establishment of Subcommittee on Geoscience Education and Diversity

Dr. Peach asked the AC/GEO to accept the Working Group Report,
"Geoscience Education and Diversity: Vision for the Future and
Strategies for Success". Dr. Peach offered to work with other members of
the AC to produce a 2 - page Executive Summary and a 20 - page Document.
Dr. Lynn made a motion to accept the Report, which was seconded and
passed.

Dr. Brune thanked the Subcommittee for their work on the Working Group
Report.

Dr. Peach suggested appointing a separate Subcommittee on Geosciences
Education and Diversity, which would include representatives from the
AC/ERE, CEOSE, and any GEO members who would like to participate. Issues
to be addressed are: geosciences education and diversity; division level
programs; education and outreach associated with large initiatives; and
dialog between the GEO staff and the committee.

A motion was made to create a Subcommittee on Geoscience Education and
Diversity, which was accepted and seconded. The Subcommittee will meet
one day before the next scheduled AC/GEO meeting. Dr. Brune asked for
volunteers to the subcommittee. Dr. Spence will send out letters
advising the committee members about the meeting.

**ACTION:** Members are invited to volunteer to be on the Subcommittee.
Dr. Spence will send notice to the AC/GEO about the meeting of the
Subcommittee in advance of the fall session of AC/GEO.

### Report from CEOSE Representative 

Dr. Samuel Myers, AC/GEO representative from the Committee on Equal
Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE), summarized the CEOSE
report released in December 2004. CEOSE was asked to evaluate the number
of people with disabilities, women, and minorities in the sciences
because of the perceived threat that we are not producing enough
scientists from these populations. The outcome seems to be modestly
positive. There has been an increase in the number of women entering
science. Although there has been a large investment, very few programs
have been evaluated. NSF exceeds the average number of women in science
and engineering. Dr. Myers asked the group for nominations and
recommendations for membership in CEOSE, particularly those from
professional societies and organizations committed to the cause.

During the next year, the priority is to promote science in community
colleges and in non-traditional pipelines; making ships and other
facilities accessible for persons with disabilities; and resolve the
ambiguity about broader impacts and increasing representation to policy
leaders. GEO is not well represented by minorities and should try to
improve their representation. He suggests that topic for an agenda item
for the next Diversity Subcommittee meeting.

Dr. Leinen suggested that the numbers of minority geoscientists is low
because Historically Black Colleges (HBC) and other minority-serving
institutions do not encourage geosciences. She noted that Dr. Huntoon
has invested a lot of time in trying to bring more minorities into the
geosciences. Dr. Myers noted that most minority scientists are more
interested in sciences that relate to people.

### *Review of Action Items*

For Members

-   Members should review the draft of the "Guiding Principles for
    Shaping the GEO Portfolio" and make suggestions for changes to Dr.
    Spence.

-   Members are invited to volunteer to be on the Education and
    Diversity Subcommittee. Submit names to Dr. Spence.

-   Members are invited to submit nominations for new AC/GEO members to
    Dr. Leinen.

-   Members are encouraged to advocate increases in the science and
    research budgets via their professional societies and Congress.

-   Dr. Peach and other members of the AC will prepare a final document
    based on the geoscience education working group's report.

For the Directorate

-   Provide additional information on the ranking of proposals across
    GEO divisions. (Dr. Leinen and Mr. Smith)

-   Schedule three Committee of Visitors (COV) to report at the fall
    session:

    -   ATM Upper Atmosphere

    -   OCE Facilities

    -   EAR Surface Processes.

For the Divisions

-   Division Subcommittee meetings should be organized and planned
    jointly by the Chair and the Division Director. The agenda should be
    distributed in advance.

-   Prepare a letter to members of the ocean community advising them of
    OCE status and plans (Dr. Larry Mayer).

-   Review plans for IPY in cooperation with OPP

-   MREFCs should consider existing education and outreach efforts in
    ongoing major programs **w**hen developing their education and
    outreach efforts

For Education and Diversity

-   Notice will be sent to the AC/GEO about the meeting of the
    Subcommittee in advance of the fall session of AC/GEO (Dr. Spence)

### *Date of Next Meeting*

The proposed dates for the next meeting are October 5-7, 2005. The
Subcommittee on Education and Diversity will meet the first day.

Dr. Leinen thanked everyone for attending and contributing and also
thanked Dr. Brune for chairing the meeting on such short notice. She
also thanked Dr. Detrick for his high standard of ethics in expressing
his conflict of interest. With no further discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 4:10 p.m.