**Advisory Committee on Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE)**

**October 17-18, 2001**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, VA**

**Meeting Summary**

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

**Dr. James Allen**, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY

**Dr. James P. Collins,** Dept. of Biology, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ

**Dr. Costel D. Denson,** Dept. of Chemical Engineering, University of
Delaware, Newark, DE

**Dr. David Ellis,** Boston Museum of Science, Boston, MA

**Dr. Thomas E. Graedel**, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,
Yale University, New Haven, CT

**Dr. Bruce A. Jackson,** Biotechnology Programs, Mass. Bay Company
Community College, Wellesley Hills, MA

**Dr. James J. Kay**, Environment and Resources Studies, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario

**Dr. Elizabeth Kelly,** Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM

**Dr. Simon A. Levin**, Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

**Dr.** **Rosalyn McKeown**, Center for Geography and Environmental
Education, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

**Dr. Stephanie Pfirman**, Department of Environmental Science, Barnard
College, New York, NY

**Dr. John Priscu**, Dept. of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences,
Montana State University, Bozeman, MT

**Dr. David Skole**, Basic Science and Remote Sensing Initiative,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

**Dr. Diana H. Wall**, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO

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

**Dr. Ronald Brisbois**, Dept. of Chemistry, Macalester College, St.
Paul, MN

**Mr. Jack Dangermond**, Environmental Systems Research Institute,
Redlands, CA

**Dr. Richard G. Luthy,** Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA

**Dr. Mary Jane Perry**, School of Marine Science, University of Maine,
Walpole, ME

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

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director for Geosciences and NSF ERE
Coordinator

**Dr. Marge Cavanaugh,** Chair, Working Group for Environmental Research
and Education (WG-ERE)

# The fourth meeting of the Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education (AC-ERE) was held October 17-18, 2001 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, VA.

# Wednesday, October 17, 2001

## Welcome, Introductions, and Meeting Goals

Dr. Stephanie Pfirman, Chair, AC-ERE, called the meeting to order at
9:05 a.m. Introductions were made. Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant
Director for Geosciences (GEO), presented a gavel to Dr. Pfirman.

Dr. Pfirman said the goals for this meeting are to:

-   Define the scope and rationale for environmental research and
    education.

-   Develop the content and thematic areas for environmental research
    and education.

-   Continue planning for producing a document that defines a strategy
    for implementation.

The Principal Investigators (PIs) for this year's Biocomplexity in the
Environment (BE) grants are convening at NSF concurrently, and the
AC-ERE will meet with them.

## Future Directions for NSF in Interdisciplinary Environmental Research: Report of AC-ERE Writing Group

Dr. Leinen said until now the focus of the AC-ERE has been to bring the
members up to speed on NSF's environmental activities. Focus group
meetings of AC-ERE members have involved discussions for establishing
strategies for environmental research and education. The first group
meeting over the summer discussed the value added for having a
multidisciplinary effort in environment. Another group discussed
developing tools and identified areas where productive investments could
be made and gaps or areas of opportunity for strategic developments.

Dr. Leinen reported that although there is a great commitment to NSF by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), they are skeptical and remain
to be persuaded of the role of basic research in environmental areas.
NSF must capture the imagination of Congress as well. She urged that the
report the AC-ERE generates should be geared to that end.

Dr. Pfirman reiterated that the purpose of the meeting is to derive a
set of recommendations, including themes and activities, to guide ERE
activities for the next several years. These recommendations are to be
highlighted in a short document that will outline what NSF should do in
terms of integrated, multidisciplinary environmental research and
education. She asked the group to develop major themes for priorities,
which could later be implemented. After much discussion, the following
topics were suggested:

1.  Synthesis Research (Assessment, Interdisciplinary-Systemic
    Understanding, Long Term)

2.  Environment and Health

3.  Public Understanding (Values-Behavior)

4.  Social Sciences (economics, population, energy) and Natural,
    Physical, and Environmental Sciences

5.  Co-Evolution of Social and Natural Systems

6.  Materials (Energy Efficiency, Chemicals, Resources, Lower Cost,
    Sustainability, environmentally benign)

7.  Natural Capital (Beyond Ecosystems Services, e.g., Atmospheric,
    Terrestrial; Biophysical Economics)

8.  Built Environment (Urban, Land Use, Population -- synthesis of many
    issues -- Theory of Urban Systems & Environmental Justice;
    Decision-Making)

9.  Linking Research and Management (Forecasting Problems that Affect
    the Public)

10. Biogeochemical Cycles (Interdisciplinary)

11. Environmental Genomics (Adaptation, Tools, Deep Biosphere)

12. Environmental Scarcity, Conflict (Environmental Security)

13. Environmental Food Systems

14. Aerobiology (Transport of Pathogens through Air)

15. Methods of Interdisciplinary Research

16. Models, Field → Prediction → Policy

17. Biodiversity

18. Environment Education (Including Human Resource Development and
    Public Understanding and Outreach)

19. Environmental Infrastructure.

Dr. Pfirman and the group agreed that although the list of topics was
comprehensive, it was too long and had to be reduced. She noted in a
Venn Diagram the interconnection and overlap among People; the Natural
Environment; and the Built Environment (Structural Infrastructure,
Materials and Technology) and that the topics could be organized along
these lines. The afternoon session will be devoted to refining
priorities, using this conceptual framework.

The group then adjourned to attend the Biocomplexity PIs' Meeting.

## Working Lunch: Update on NSF Activities: International, Interagency, Global Change, BE Competition, and Budget

Dr. Leinen addressed the following topics:

*NSF Budget*

Dr. Leinen reported that the NSF budget for next year has not yet been
approved. The President had proposed a 1.3 percent increase for FY 2002;
the Senate had proposed 5 percent; and the House of Representatives had
proposed 9 percent. It is expected that the final budget will be
increased between 5 and 9 percent.

*Biocomplexity Competition*

The Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) FY 2001 awards have been
announced: 73 awards were made for a total of \$55 M. They included 37
large awards for up to \$2.7 M for 5 years; and 35 small awards of under
\$100 K. A total of 376 proposals were received with a success rate of
19 percent. The BE competition for FY 2002 will include one new topic
area: Materials Use: Science, Engineering, and Society (MUSES).

*Developments in Environment Education*

Dr. Leinen attended a conference at the North American Association of
Environmental Educators. A workshop on education and environment has
been funded and she suggested having representatives from the AC-ERE
attend and help develop their recommendations. A key issue is how to
train a more diverse community of scientists.

*Cyberinfrastructure for ERE*

Dr. Leinen defined cyberinfrastructure as a range of capabilities such
as networking, software for large data sets, visualization, and
distributed computation resources. A Blue Ribbon Panel has been formed
that will make recommendations to enable all NSF fields. There are
opportunities for ERE, for example, the reliance on spatial data and
network observation systems.

*Interagency Developments*

NSF and EPA have formed an informal group, the Interagency Forum on
Environmental Research (InFER). Their goal is to coordinate programs
already in existence, not to create new programs but to enhance
communication so that all the agencies are informed. They are focusing
on two areas that fit into the environmental Grand Challenges: regional
place-based studies that include multiple stressor models and
environmental indicators; and environment and health.

*U.S. Global Change Research Program*

Long-range planning is underway and will emphasize knowledge for
projecting change, understanding vulnerability, and enhancing
resiliency. The focus is on research that will lead to useful knowledge
to support decision making.

*President's Climate Change Research Initiative*

This is a focused effort to make rapid progress on key priorities for
reducing uncertainty and will include climate forcing and feedbacks
(carbon cycle, aerosols); modeling; and a climate observing system.

*International Developments*

An agreement is being implemented with the EC. There are also new
collaborations with the UK and Japan.

# Diversity

In the discussion that followed Dr. Leinen's report, Dr. Denson
expressed serious concern about the lack of diversity in environmental
fields. Since the activities are interdisciplinary and interagency, he
asked who would be accountable for underrepresented groups. He asked
what NSF could do to nurture the talent in the U.S. (regardless of skin
color or gender) instead of importing graduate students from other
countries. Dr. Leinen said she will take responsibility for developing
programs to resolve this. As the Assistant Director for Geosciences, she
is engaged in a program to encourage diversity in geosciences. Dr. Kelly
said she thinks the problem is broader than just bringing minority
groups into the field. In the U.S., there is a general lack of interest
in entering academics. Dr. Denson suggested mentoring and providing role
models to encourage students into the graduate science programs. Later
in the meeting, Dr. Jackson also stressed the importance of encouraging
underrepresented minorities to participate in environmental areas. He
noted that plans for research and education should be formulated with
minority participation in order to have complete and balanced plans.

Dr. Levin suggested providing incentives to PIs to include students from
underrepresented groups and also summer programs for students. Dr.
McKeown suggested recruiting actively from the community colleges where
many students represent minority populations. Dr. Pfirman suggested
studying this issue and discussing it in depth at the next meeting.
**ACTION:** Approximately ½ day of the Spring AC meeting will be devoted
to this topic.

The group reviewed the long list of priorities suggested at the morning
session of the meeting and decided to synthesize the topics and reduce
the number. To achieve this, Dr. Denson suggested looking at the
endpoints and deriving a method for achieving them. After lengthy
discussions, the list was pared down to three endpoints.

-   Environmental Integrity (Topics 7, 10, 11, 17)

-   Human Health and Environment (2,13)

-   Human Welfare and Environment (8, 12, 13)

    There are drivers, processes, tools, and metrics associated with
    these. Drivers listed were land use, climate change, population
    growth, pollution loading, consumption, institutional policy
    (research, interactions), fragmentation, spatial articulation,
    invasive species, valuation, emerging pathogens, and
    antibiotics/pesticides. Some items on the previous list are
    Processes (4, 5, 6, 14) and Tools (1, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19). Methods
    include economics, valuation, aesthetics, and ethics.

    Dr. Levin suggested a discussion on the kinds of proposals that
    should be encouraged in order to respond to the endpoints. The
    following research topics were suggested:

    *Environmental Integrity Research Topics*

-   Institutions and Instruments for Managing Environmental Integrity
    (Behavior and Change; Social Norms and Values)

    \- Definition of Environmental Integrity Studies
    -Methods/Consequences of Valuation; How to "Operationalize"
    Environmental Integrity

    \- Understanding Ways People Value the Environment

-   Case Studies/Models e.g., Ecosystem Services.

    Dr. Skole said there are two levels on which to view the
    institutions. First, there should be an examination of the concepts
    of environmental integrity: how to define, measure, mentor and
    assess it. Second, there should be studies of environmental
    integrity that would include how institutions have influence on the
    structures and the function of ecosystems, and their provision of
    environmental services. The question is what constitutes
    environmental integrity and the process studies are important so you
    can understand the function.

    *Human Health and Environment Research Topics*

-   Interaction Between Natural and Human Systems - Effect on Human
    Health

-   Infectious Diseases - Ecology and Delivery; Vectors

-   Partnership Opportunities with other Agencies - PCAST Interagency
    Structure

-   Environmental Disrupters - Antibiotics and Human/Natural Systems
    (Ecology and Evolution); Humans as Drivers of Evolution.

There may be opportunities for interagency interactions in the above
with NIH, CDC, NASA, USDA, NIEHS, and NICHD. Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant
Director for Biological Sciences, said she foresees a problem because
Congress does not approve of one agency duplicating research that has
been allocated to another agency. She suggested partnering with other
agencies where one agency contributes the money and the other
contributes the facility. Dr. Leinen remarked that PCAST supports
interagency cooperation. Dr. Levin said there may be some areas where
overlap with another agency would be desirable, such as in the
development of new vaccines or in learning how to minimize antibiotic
resistance, since they relate to ecological issues. Dr. McKeown
suggested water soluble contaminants that end up in our water supply as
another example. Dr. Thomas Baerwald, Senior Science Advisor,
Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE),
remarked that there are human health issues other than disease. After a
discussion, the AC-ERE listed the following topics for consideration:

*Human Health Issues Beyond Disease Research Topics*

-   Mortality (infant, longevity, life expectancy) and fertility

-   Changes at molecular scale in response to environmental change

-   Nutrition and food production

-   Groundwater contaminants; delivery of contaminants

-   Healthy environments for humans/ quality of life and aesthetics

-   Natural hazards/ catastrophes (extreme events, system analysis)

-   Endocrine disrupters

-   Demographic transition/ change

-   Nature and timing of human response to human health threats

-   Gender equity

    *Human Welfare and the Environment Research Topics*

-   Ecosystem services - understanding, measuring and maintaining them
    for human welfare; understanding ecosystems

-   Industrial ecology- connecting ecosystem services to humans; life
    cycle of products; efficiency and effect of urban/suburban systems;
    economic welfare

-   Land use and built environment (urban and rural)

-   Environmental justice/equity

-   Environmental security and conflict (war and effects of mobilizing
    for war)

-   Institutionalizing systematic understanding

-   Distribution systems (water, energy, food) on global basis

-   Vulnerability and resilience as a framework

    Dr. Leinen said that the priorities and research areas addressed
    would be synthesized by the Working Group to assist the AC-ERE in
    preparing a "walking around" document that could be shown to
    professional societies, OMB, other agencies, and other directorates
    of NSF. The meeting adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m.

# Thursday, October 18, 2001 {#thursday-october-18-2001 .unnumbered}

Dr. Pfirman called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. She asked for a
motion to approve the minutes of the AC-ERE meeting of May 2001. A
motion was made and seconded. The minutes were approved by voice vote.
Dr. Pfirman reviewed the research topics that the group had suggested
the previous day. She asked the members of the AC-ERE to work with the
Working Group to generate a short report (one page) summarizing each
topic. The report would then be sent to each of the task groups of the
AC-ERE for their input.

## ERE Issues for Discussion with the Director {#ere-issues-for-discussion-with-the-director .unnumbered}

Dr. Pfirman asked the AC-ERE to consider issues of concern to discuss
with Dr. Rita Colwell, Director, NSF. Issues raised were:

-   Since the events of September 11, has there been any significant
    change in the budget?

-   How can we institutionalize cross disciplinary projects?

-   What about funding for establishing networks?

-   Is there a way to make the National Environmental Observatory
    Network (NEON) more interdisciplinary?

## O/D Guidance and Meeting with Director {#od-guidance-and-meeting-with-director .unnumbered}

Dr. Colwell said that the knowledge and focus of the AC-ERE is even more
important since the events of September 11, e.g., monitoring, NEON, and
understanding the interaction of living organisms with the environment.
The focus must be on diversity because of President Bush's mandate, "no
child left behind." The FY 2002 NSF budget increase will probably be in
excess of 6 percent. We will see a continued investment in
Biocomplexity.

The following questions were raised for discussion with Dr. Colwell:

-   Dr. Wall asked whether NEON will be broadened to include other
    directorates and also whether environmental forecasting will be
    included. Dr. Colwell said she believes there will be a huge
    investment in biosecurity.

-   Dr. Kelly said that she is concerned because the Biocomplexity
    Priority Area is scheduled to end in FY 2006. The AC-ERE would like
    to see it continued as an interdisciplinary program. Dr. Colwell
    said that the money budgeted for BE has increased incrementally each
    year. Even though there will be changes, the funding will continue.
    She said that when one has identified the synthesis of information
    from molecular to global, it provides a new way of thinking and
    changes the core funding. She complimented Dr. Cavanaugh and
    Dr. Leinen for their work on the Priority Area.

-   Dr. Skole asked Dr. Colwell to address the issue of research
    networks, which are necessary when there is place-based research and
    interdisciplinary research. He asked if there is any investment
    being considered at NSF for the development of research networks.
    Dr. Colwell responded that oceanographers and astronomers have been
    networking research for many years and she doesn't see any
    difficulty in biologists doing the same by coordinating and linking
    groups and institutions together.

-   Dr. Priscu asked if Dr. Colwell sees the role of NSF changing due to
    the recent terrorist events. Dr. Colwell said that NSF's role is
    research but within a week of the events of September 11, NSF became
    involved by sending engineers to study the rubble and social
    scientists to study reactions to the events. Also, we already have
    programs in cyber security, chemical sensing, and NEON. All will be
    made available to the Department of Defense.

-   Dr. Baerwald, SBE, asked what NSF's role should be in health issues
    vis-à-vis NIH. Dr. Colwell responded that NSF deals with basic
    fundamental research and is not a cleanup agency (like EPA) or a
    disease treatment agency (like NIH). However, the chemical and
    biological research that NSF does feeds into the other agencies.

-   Dr. Fred Meyerson, NSF AAAS Fellow, asked whether we should be
    concerned about our research overlapping with NIH. She said NSF does
    basic research and NIH does exploratory research, so there shouldn't
    be overlap.

## Environmental Research and Education Interests of the EC {#environmental-research-and-education-interests-of-the-ec .unnumbered}

Dr. Colwell welcomed Dr. Christian Patermann, Director for Environment,
European Commission (EC). The purpose of Dr. Patermann's visit to NSF
was a signing ceremony for an agreement for cooperation between the U.S.
and the EC. Dr. Colwell remarked that the EC's research in the area of
environmental sustainability and global change encompasses 15 countries.
The agreement formalizes international cooperation in such areas as
arctic research, hazards reduction, the Network for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation (NEES), and Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER).
Dr. Leinen and Dr. Patermann signed the agreement.

Dr. Patermann said that the agreement shows the importance of
environmental protection and the value of learning from one another
about environmental sustainability. Even though we already cooperate in
transatlantic studies such as stratospheric aerosols in polar regions,
we are neighbors and share the ocean. The EC's next Framework will be
looking for a closer cooperation on sustainable development, global
change, and new instruments. World ecosystems, energy, and transport
will also be added.

During the next year, the U.S. and EC will decide whether to call for
joint proposals. A total of 27 countries will be involved, but we will
also fund Mediterranean countries, former Soviet Union countries, and
developing countries, which are not currently members.

Dr. Leinen said that it is significant that the signing ceremony took
place at the AC-ERE meeting, which is composed of many different types
of scientists and engineers.

## Directions in Environmental Research in the UK {#directions-in-environmental-research-in-the-uk .unnumbered}

Dr. David A. Brown, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) of the
UK, outlined the organization's environmental priorities. He said the
main players in the UK are the NERC, Environment Agency, Meteorological
Office, Countryside Agencies, the Department of Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and the EC. NERC's goals are to support basic
research and training to underpin the UK economic competitiveness and
quality of life; and to provide the other arm of the university "dual
support system." The NERC budget for FY 2000-2001 is approximately 181
million pounds. Interdisciplinary projects in genomics, e-science, and
basic technologies; Rapid Climate Change; and the Joint Infrastructure
Fund are all underway. E-science is bringing together environmental
models to address fundamental problems in environmental science. Rapid
Climate Change is looking at thermohaline circulation in collaboration
with other countries. Future research in a new science and innovation
strategy includes all of the agencies in the Council. Emerging areas are
in sustainable energy economy, rural economy and land use, environment
and health, technology for sustainable development, Quantifying the
Earth System (QUEST), and a replacement research vessel, the Charles
Darwin. NERC has collaborations with U.S. and Europe including Framework
VI, the European research area, large-scale facilities (NY Alesund), and
ESF (Eurocores).

## Follow-on Discussion {#follow-on-discussion .unnumbered}

Dr. Skole commented that the Council seemed to focus on the technology
of agriculture without much emphasis on the human and social aspects.
Dr. Brown responded that there have been discussions with social
scientists but they must be integrated into the science.

Much discussion centered on the need for sustainability, concentrating
on energy and transport in order to lower dependence on imported fuels.
Important aspects will be the impact of the mechanisms of the carbon
cycle, water cycle, biodiversity, environmental genomics, and the Global
Monitoring for Environmental Security (GMES). Dr. Patermann noted that
in June they decided on a plan for sustainable development and the EC
has been asked to deliver a set of social, economic, and ecological
indicators. They have formed a working group and are developing
assessment tools. Each research proposal submitted is evaluated for its
support of the EC science policy.

Dr. Leinen said that at NSF some research is precluded because it is
under the purview of a different agency. Dr. Ellis commented that the
U.S. has benefited from the brain drain from Europe, and asked if that
has any impact on the EC. Dr. Brown said that, in the UK as in the U.S.,
there is a problem of recruiting students into graduate programs in the
environmental sciences because of the low salaries. Dr. Leinen said that
family debt and student debts contribute to the diversity problem. More
affluent students rely on their families for economic assistance.
Dr. Skole would like to see a partnership between the U.S. and the EC to
support developing countries, but there is still a strong push to
support national needs. Dr. Patermann said the global aspect is very
high on the agenda. There are some good projects but there are problems
and we have to see how the Framework develops over the next 6 months.

## ERE Portfolio in Education and Human Resources {#ere-portfolio-in-education-and-human-resources .unnumbered}

Dr. Judith Ramaley, Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources
(EHR), said the mission of EHR is to support science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education in order to develop diverse and
informed citizens. She envisions a triangle with "formal education
systems" on one side and "work force" on the other side resting on a
base of "economic and community development." EHR is trying to integrate
and network individuals, ideas, tools, and institutions. Institutional
integration will include partnering and collaborating with other
institutions.

EHR has made some good investments in environmental education. Funding
extends across all levels. Dr. Ramaley asked the AC-ERE for guidance in
promoting integration of research and education and intellectual
capital. Participation should be broadened in four areas: institutions
such as community colleges, small colleges, and minority institutions;
interdisciplinary\--linking the physical sciences with the social
sciences; encouraging women and minority populations; and integrating
international collaboration.

Dr. Ramaley said that a recent study that included examining the grant
jackets found that most of the projects have not addressed Criterion 2.
Criterion 2 states that the research must "broaden the impacts of
scientific activity; advance discovery while promoting teaching and
learning; advance the infrastructure; and be disseminated broadly." Dr.
Skole remarked that the IGERT program is directed at integrating
research, and he would like to see the AC-ERE create some environmental
IGERT initiatives to push the transdisciplinary effort.

The solicitation for the science learning centers is in process. The
focus is on EHR partnering with SBE, but it is an NSF-wide effort, which
should result in collaborative models. Dr. Ramaley hopes to fund 20
science learning centers. The solicitation for the Math-Science
Partnership, funded at \$200 M for 5 years, is also in process.
Dr. Ramaley said it would be helpful to have the Advisory Committees
review it to make sure that activities at K-12 level are included. She
will give the solicitation to Dr. Pfirman before it is finalized.

Dr. Allen asked what kind of mechanisms will be used to get the
education research results into the educational system. Dr. Ramaley said
that this is not being addressed adequately. A three-agency group (NIH,
NSF, DoEd) has been formed to help bring the research into the system.
The science learning centers and the National Research Council are also
working on it. There is a glaring gap in what we are generating but not
using.

Dr. Ramaley said there are two major national efforts studying graduate
education in the future to include interdisciplinary doctorates. NSF has
been involved in changing the nature of doctoral recipients so they can
work in an interdisciplinary way. Some schools are developing programs
in integrative sciences, but a major concern is whether or not they will
find employment upon completion.

## Working Lunch: Trends and Opportunities in Research and Education: "Geobiology of Antarctic Ice: Is there a Deep, Cold Biosphere?"  {#working-lunch-trends-and-opportunities-in-research-and-education-geobiology-of-antarctic-ice-is-there-a-deep-cold-biosphere .unnumbered}

Dr. Priscu said that the Antarctic Subglacial Lake Vostok Ecosystem
Initiative is a good example of multi-and interdisciplinary research and
education and of international cooperation. Lake Vostok is a 14,000
square kilometer liquid lake under about 4,000 meters of ice. There are
numerous bacteria and non-living organic particles including viral
particles present in lakewater that has frozen to the bottom of the
overlying ice sheet. Scientists have studied the DNA of the microbes,
which may allow them to reconstruct what may occur within the lake as
well as define viral and bacterial variation on the Earth's surface over
the past 500,000 years. The recent biological investigations on Lake
Vostok show us that the microbial world has few limits on Earth. The icy
systems will help us understand the origins of life and the bottlenecks
of evolution on the Earth. Because of these discoveries, the definition
of Earth's biosphere will need to be expanded.

Dr. Pfirman asked for volunteers to produce a short paper (1-2 pages) on
each of the research topics in the format of the rationale and
background. Volunteers and nominated AC members were:

Introduction: James Kay and James Allen

Integrity: James Kay

Institutions: Rosalyn McKeown

Land use: David Skole

Ecology/pathogens: Diana Wall and Simon Levin

Materials: Thomas Graedel

Justice: Costel Denson

Scarcity: David Ellis

Education: Rosalyn McKeown

Infrastructure: Mary Jane Perry

**ACTION**: Dr. Pfirman will confirm writing assignments with AC members
by e-mail.

## GPRA Report for FY 2001 {#gpra-report-for-fy-2001 .unnumbered}

Dr. Kelly and Ms. Melissa Lane, NSF, provided an overview of GPRA. They
said that because the AC-ERE does not represent a single directorate but
is cross-cutting, the focus for their GPRA input will be on the awarded
research of the Biocomplexity Priority Area, which just completed its
third cycle. A draft report has been prepared that measures how the
Biocomplexity awards have provided research in support of the Outcome
Goals of People, Ideas, and Tools. Examples of the research relevant in
each of the areas are included in the draft report. Dr. Kelly and Ms.
Lane will continue to work on the draft report and will then send it to
Dr. Pfirman for review. The group was asked for suggestions to be
incorporated into the report. The final version is due around the end of
November.

## Wrap-Up {#wrap-up .unnumbered}

Dr. Pfirman summarized the progress made at the meeting regarding the
preparation of the document to be disseminated. The following timetable
was approved **(ACTION):**

-   Draft I will be completed by November 30 and then will be sent to
    the task groups for review.

-   Task groups will provide comments by January 4.

-   NSF staff will incorporate comments and produce Draft II.

-   A writing session on January 28 and 29 will produce Draft III.

-   Draft III will be sent to all members of the AC-ERE.

-   AC-ERE members and NSF staff will vet Draft III with their
    colleagues and associates for their opinions. All comments are due
    March 15.

-   NSF staff will produce Draft IV for review at the April 3-4 meeting
    of the AC-ERE.

    The committee turned to a discussion of educational issues. Dr.
    McKeown commented that in the area of environmental education,
    outreach and human resources, it will be important to make sure that
    there is some research base and that it is not just programmatic.
    Science literacy is well assessed by achievement tests, but there is
    no equivalent in environmental literacy. To accomplish that will
    require a large scale research program, the integration and
    administration of instruments, and an analysis of the data. She has
    written a short paper on it and recommends testing at 4th, 8th, and
    12th grades. Dr. McKeown said there is a step between the researcher
    and the user and there needs to be a bridge between the two.

    Dr. Ellis remarked that there is so much information that does not
    reach the public and he asked Dr. Leinen to suggest ways in which
    the AC-ERE could help the public understand what they are trying to
    accomplish. He said that we should encourage grantees, as part of
    their responsibility, to make sure that their work is disseminated
    to the public. Dr. Priscu asked about the implications of Criterion
    2 and said that a requirement to disseminate should be written into
    grants. He asked whether the Biocomplexity proposals include methods
    of outreach. Dr. Leinen said some do. Dr. Cavanaugh said the AC-OPP
    had prepared a 3-page document to help clarify Criterion 2 for their
    grantees. Dr. Pfirman suggested that at the April meeting, the
    AC-ERE look at the implications of broader participation (Criterion
    2). Dr. Priscu suggested that NEON should address the broadening
    participation factor. **ACTION**: The AC-ERE voted that the AC-ERE
    Chair write a letter to NSF on the Committee's behalf about NEON.

    Future education activities suggested include:

-   Educating and building a base of researchers

-   Conducting workshops

-   Networking with colleagues

-   Making research connections with community colleges and historically
    black colleges and universities (HBCUs) to increase diversity.

-   Supporting and encouraging IGERTs.

Finally, the group agreed to include approaches to interdisciplinary
research in the implementation document. The outline for the document
agreed to is as follows.

[Introduction/outcomes]{.underline}:

Environmental integrity, human health and human welfare

[Priorities:]{.underline}

Understanding, defining, and valuing environmental integrity and

environmental services: functioning, economics, aesthetics, social norms

Role of institutions: policy, organization, decision making

Land use and the built environment: urban, rural, coastal

Ecology and delivery of pathogens/toxins (to humans and other organisms)

Materials (including energy): smart, green, benign

Environmental justice

Environmental scarcity, consumption, conflict, security

[Cross-cutting:]{.underline}

Environmental education, human resources, public understanding

Approaches to interdisciplinary research

> Tools, techniques, methods
>
> Synthesis
>
> Systems dynamics/models
>
> Predication and Forecasting
>
> Coevolution in natural and human systems
>
> Meta-analysis, statistical analysis
>
> Data visualization and data mining
>
> Indicators
>
> Studying how interdisciplinary research is done

Infrastructure

> Regional networks and projects
>
> Regional place-based assessments
>
> Observatories
>
> Case studies and experimental campaigns
>
> Integrated Assessments

Implementation means

> International collaboration (international programs)
>
> Cross-agency/interagency
>
> Education and outreach/planning

The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.

Approval:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Stephanie Pfirman, Chair, AC-ERE Date