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

**November 6-7, 2000**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, VA**

**Meeting Summary**

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

**Dr. David W. Simpson**, **Chair,** Incorporated Research Institutions
for Seismology, Washington, DC

**Dr. Gail Ashley**, Department of Geological Sciences, Rutgers
University, Piscataway, NJ

**Dr.** **Roger C. Bales**, Department of Hydrology & Water Resources,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

**Dr. Inez Fung**, Center for Atmospheric Sciences, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA

**Dr. Michael F. Hochella, Jr.**, Department of Geological Sciences,
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA

**Dr. Emi Ito**, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

**Dr. Kenneth S. Johnson**, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,
Moss Landing, CA

**Dr. Kim A. Kastens**, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia
University, Palisades, NY

**Dr. Timothy Killeen**, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, CO

**Dr. Charles Kolb**, Aerodyne Research, Inc., Billerica, MA

**Dr. John A. Orcutt**, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,
CA

**Dr. Judith Parrish**, Department of Geosciences, University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ

**Mr. Robert Ryan**, WRC-TV, Washington, DC

**Dr. Lynne D. Talley**, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,
CA

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

**Dr. Otis B. Brown,** Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric
Sciences, University of Miami, Miami, FL

**Dr. Donald L. Paul**, Chevron Corporation, San Francisco, CA

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

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

**Dr. Richard Behnke**, Section Head, Division of Atmospheric Sciences

**Dr. Alan Gaines**, Senior Science Associate for Spatial Data and
Information

**Dr. Clifford A. Jacobs,** Facilities Coordinator, Atmospheric Sciences

**Dr. Margaret Leinen**, Assistant Director

**Dr. Jarvis Moyers**, Director, Division of Atmospheric Sciences

**Dr. Michael Purdy**, Director, Division of Ocean Sciences

**Ms. Vanessa Richardson,** Director, Operations and Analysis

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

**Dr. Thomas W. Spence,** Senior Associate for Science Programs and
Coordination

**Dr. Herman Zimmerman**, Director, Division of Earth Sciences

# The fall meeting of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences (AC/GEO) was held on November 6-7, 2000 at the National Science Foundation in Arlington, VA.

# **Monday,November 6, 2000**

## Welcome and Introductions

Dr. David Simpson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:45 a.m.
Introductions were made.

## Report from the Chair of the AC/GEO

Dr. Simpson announced that Dr. Kim Kastens has been named Vice Chair of
the AC/GEO. There has been one resignation and one member, Dr. Mary Jane
Perry, has also been appointed to the new Advisory Committee for
Environmental Research and Education (AC/ERE).

Dr. Simpson reviewed the agenda and said that the AC/GEO was charged
with reviewing two Committee of Visitor (COV) reports, one on Education
and Human Resources and the other on UCAR and Lower Atmospheric
Facilities Oversight Section (ULAFOS), and with preparing the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) report for FY 2000.

He noted that Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director, NSF, will discuss
the Federal Government's response to the Foundation\'s FY 1999 GPRA
Report. Much work has been done to improve the structure of the GPRA
report, but help is needed in determining the outcomes and
accomplishments. At the last meeting of the AC/GEO, a diversity program
was encouraged and Dr. Kim Kastens and Dr. Michael Mayhew will report on
the progress.

Dr. Simpson summarized the discussions from the September Advisory
Committee Chairs meeting. He reported that Dr.Rita Colwell, Director,
NSF, had asked that three items be discussed at advisory commitee
meetings: increasing the NSF budget; the best methods for the successful
measurement of NSF performance; and the best practices of the Advisory
Committees.

## Update on GEO and NSF Initiatives

Dr. Leinen provided information on the "Careers for Young Investigators"
(CAREER) Program. The CAREER COV, which will be convened this year, will
include representatives from the Advisory Committees. She asked members
to consider volunteering to serve on the COV.

Dr. Leinen provided highlights on the following issues:

-   *NSF budget for FY 2001.* NSF received a 13.6 percent increase in
    the budget. The community showed its support through letters from
    professional societies to Congress and there has been a notable
    change in Congress's view of NSF. The goal for FY 2002 is to
    continue the plan to double the NSF budget in 5 years with continued
    emphasis on increasing award size and duration. For FY 2001, no
    funds were included for EarthScope I, but HIAPER received some
    funding. For FY 2002, there is a better outlook for Major Research
    Equipment (MRE). The National Science Board approved EarthScope II:
    Plate Boundary Observatory.

-   *The FY 2001 Initiatives.* The Biocomplexity Initiative was
    increased 50%; Information Technology Research was increased 70%;
    and Nanoscale Science and Engineering was increased 54%. Two
    emerging initiatives are planned for FY 2001: the Mathematical
    Sciences Initiative and the 21st Century Workforce Initiative. It is
    expected that five years of intense investment will be required for
    the initiatives to evolve.

-   *Award Size and Duration.* The current average award size for the
    Geosciences Directorate is \$85K per year for 2.8 years. The NSF
    goal is to increase award size and duration to \$150K per year for 4
    years.

-   *U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).* A long-range plan is
    required by Congress. The plan must also be reviewed by the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS) as mandated by Congress. Much
    Congressional attention has been paid to the national assessment of
    climate change impacts. A committee has been established for
    studying the Human Dimensions of Global Change. The AC/GEO is
    charged with assisting in its development. There is a potential for
    joint solicitation and a strong interest in thermohaline
    circulation, fisheries, and oceanography.

Dr. Leinen announced the following GEO personnel developments: There is
an opening for a new Deputy Assistant Director for GEO. Dr. Michael
Purdy, Division Director, OCE, has accepted a position as Director of
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Dr. Donald Heinrichs will
become the Interim Division Director. OCE has been reorganized into
three sections: Ocean Section (OS), Marine Geosciences Section (MGS),
and Integrative Programs Section (IPS). There is an opening for a
section head for the Marine Geosciences Section.

Dr. Charles Kolb questioned the funding of a new aircraft before there
was discussion about what the plane would do. He thought the community
should be involved in providing input for instrumentation development.
Dr. Leinen responded that planning (including instrumentation workshops)
had been going on for ten years. Workshops for chemical sensors have
been held at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Dr.
Clifford Jacobs, Section Head, ULAFOS, Atmospheric Sciences, said that
an RFP has been prepared and a second workshop for instrumentation is
planned for the second quarter of FY 2001.

In response to a question from Dr. John Orcutt, Dr. Leinen said that
ocean drilling is important and should be discussed at the AC meeting.

Mr. Robert Ryan said that he is concerned about the interpretation of
data since the U.S. does not lead the world in competition for climate
models, but Dr. Leinen said that a set of criteria had been established
and that NSF has been working with other agencies and has identified a
plan for the next national assessment. There has been a very active
collaboration between NSF, DOE, NOAA, and NASA.

## Environmental Portfolio

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Office of the Director, reported on the October
meeting of the new Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and
Education (AC/ERE). The AC/ERE was asked to look at education and the
environment to identify new opportunities, and to serve as a contact and
forum. They will meet three times the first year. Their portfolio has
two components: Initiatives and Core Programs. Dr. Cavanaugh said the
NAS had identified several grand challenges for the environment, such as
biological diversity, hydrologic forecasting, infectious disease, and
land use. The Biocomplexity in the Environment Initiative has two parts:
NSF-wide competitions and focused interdisciplinary areas. Topics
proposed for FY 2002 include dynamics of coupled human and natural
systems, coupled biochemical cycles, genome-enabled environmental
sciences, and instrumentation development. Also discussed at the meeting
was the method for selecting reviewers and the concern about staff
"burnout", and the low success rate for Biocomplexity Initiative
proposals.

Dr. Kastens asked about the AC/ERE's involvement in education. Dr.
Cavanaugh said there were two committee members whose primary interest
is in education and diversity and also there is involvement from the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR). Proposers must
integrate education into their research and there are specific grants
for education. EHR has designated about \$30 M for environmental
studies.

Dr. Cavanaugh agreed with Dr. Timothy Killeen that there is commonality
between the AC/ERE and the AC/GEO and that there are some overlapping
areas that were also expressed in the NAS grand challenges. She said
that a focus of the Biocomplexity Initiative is on studies involving the
water and carbon cycles. Dr. Leinen remarked that appropriations for
studies of water and the carbon cycle have been included in the GEO
budget for FY 2001 that are very relevant to GEO and not just as part of
the Biocomplexity Initiative.

## Information Technology Research (ITR)

Dr. Eric Itsweire, the GEO representative for the ITR initiative,
outlined the research areas for the solicitation for FY 2001 and said
most of GEO's involvement would be in information management and
applications in science and engineering. He noted that there were three
categories of grants: single-PI projects (\<\$500K total, 30% funding);
small groups (\<\$1M/yr. up to 5 years, 40% funding); and large groups
(\<\$3M/yr. up to 5 years, 30% funding). International and for-profit
collaborations are encouraged. Working groups have been established to
help review pre-proposals. The search for reviewers has been publicized
through a "Dear Colleague" letter and by putting requests for reviewers
on the ITR web page. Dr. Itsweire said all the ITR grant money would be
awarded through this solicitation and hoped that an adequate number of
proposals will be submitted in the geosciences to warrant GEO-related
panels.

Dr. Killeen outlined the solicitation\'s research topic areas: system
design and implementation; people and social groups interacting with
computers and infrastructure; information management; applications in
science and engineering (such as algorithms and data models);and
scalable information infrastructure for pervasive computing and access.
Collaborations in the geosciences community are being encouraged,
particularly in large scope earth systems modeling and observational
network aspects.

Dr. Alan Gaines, Senior Science Associate for Spatial Data and
Information, noted that there is a need for community participation in
the review process and he asked that the AC/GEO and their colleagues
become involved. Mr. Ryan asked how an understanding of IT tools could
be communicated better to students. Dr. Killeen responded that there is
an element included for integrating education and research.

## NSF Initiatives Part I: Mathematical Sciences Initiative (MSI)

Dr. James Rosenberger, Division of Mathematical Sciences, said that a
working group with representation from every directorate was formed in
June 2000 to develop the initiative. The focus is in three areas:
fundamental mathematical and statistical sciences; connections to other
sciences and engineering; and mathematical sciences education.

The initiative is important because science, engineering, and technology
are closely intertwined with fundamental mathematical sciences and there
has been a "mathematization" of science. There is no specific program
planned for FY 2001, but implementation will be set in place by
increasing grant size and duration, increasing support for graduate
students and post-docs, collaborative research groups, new mathematical
sciences institutes, interdisciplinary centers, cross-disciplinary
training, and educational enhancements of research efforts. It is
expected that there will be an announcement in the Spring. Funds for
initiatives in specific areas such as geosciences will be targeted. In
response to a concern that the money allotted for education is minimal,
he said there is joint participation with EHR.

### Structure of the Mathematical Sciences Initiative

Dr. Stephen Meacham, Division of Ocean Sciences and GEO representative
to the MSI Working Group, reported on the structure of MSI, which is
interdisciplinary and has three components: focused research, training
(of young researchers), and center activities. By combining mathematics
and geosciences, new concepts of mathematics will be stimulated. He gave
examples of mathematical/geosciences research areas that would benefit
from collaborations, such as linear and nonlinear inverse theory and
data assimilation; analysis of sparse, intermittent data; the ocean
atmosphere and climate; and complex nonlinear systems. Other activities
of the initiative are training for graduate students and post-docs, and
center-like activities for geoscientists and mathematical researchers
together. The proposed timeline for MSI is as follows:

-   October 2000 - MSI was presented to the National Science Board

-   March 2001 - Mathematics/Geosciences workshop to be held at the
    University of Minnesota

-   Spring 2001 - "Dear Colleague" letter will be sent

-   May 2001 - the Spring AGU will have a special session on
    Mathematical Geosciences and a poster session on the MSI

-   Spring through Fall 2001 - additional posters and talks about MSI at
    professional meetings

## Initiative Discussion

Dr. Judith Parrish asked whether geoscientists will benefit from working
with mathematicians and vice versa. Dr. Meacham responded that they will
both benefit and geoscientists will provide many challenges to
mathematicians. Dr. Lynn Talley mentioned the possibility of low success
rates for proposals, and Dr. Rosenberger said part of the reason for
dividing the appropriations among disciplines is to increase the success
rate. Mr. Ryan commented that since the initiatives are Foundation-wide
and considering the sad state of education, there seems to be very
little attention paid to education. Dr. Meacham said that the
Directorate for Mathematics and Physical Sciences (MPS) sees math as
healthy because of its interaction with other disciplines. Dr. Simpson
said that NSF is struggling with how to get directorates to work
together, but MSI will be successful in that endeavor. Dr. Inez Fung
encouraged a stronger emphasis in teaching mathematics to geoscientists
at the early stages of education. Dr. Kastens asked if there was some
way to bring the collaborative aspect of the initiatives into the
education component. Dr. Meacham responded that there have been
discussions with EHR. Dr. John Orcutt asked if there were any ties
between the MSI and ITR initiatives. Dr. Rosenberger said the focus here
is on mathematics and statistics, but that there would be a benefit in
tying ITR with MSI in the geosciences.

## Working Lunch: Trends and Opportunities in the Geosciences

#### Dr. Inez Fung

Dr. Fung described a symposium on women and earth science that she
attended at the University of Vermont where diversity and
under-represented groups were discussed. She said women should be
encouraged to go into geosciences and given incentives to stay. The
attrition rate for women is greater than for men because women leave to
have children, then lose their tenure and don't come back.

Dr. Simpson said Dr. Colwell had asked the AC/GEO to consider diversity.
Dr. Gail Ashley said there are lots of women in the pool but not many
apply because there is an unfortunate convergence of critical issues for
women scientists: the coincidence of child-bearing years and the time
for developing a research program and gaining tenure. Both men and women
are rejecting the geosciences field because of the hard work and low
pay. Dr. Gail Ashley said there are lots of women in the pool but not
many apply. Private industry offers day care, which is attractive to
women, and is ahead of academia in the issues of workforce and being
family friendly. Dr. Parrish noted that often women drop out to have
children and may need some program such as a sabbatical to get back up
to speed, and suggested that NSF consider establishing such a program.
Dr. Leinen agreed that NSF should take a strong advocacy stand at
universities about their tenure and promotion plans for women. Dr.
Killeen said that NSF has a program in place called ADVANCE, to help
women in the sciences.

#### Dr. John Orcutt

Dr. Orcutt brought up the issue of getting permits for ocean experiments
and suggested that NSF has a fundamental responsibility in this area. He
gave an example of an air gun survey to map faults off Southern
California. Three-mile limits and underwater noise limitations to
protect mammals were imposed and a permit was required from three
agencies. Proceedings were begun in January 1999 and permission wasn't
granted until June 1999. The staff time for the permitting process
nearly equaled the total number of hours worked by the eight-member
scientific staff. A recent new ruling requires that permits be processed
nine months before the experiment is to begin. The bureaucracy causes a
major impact on this experimentation, and is a direct result of the
National Environmental Protection Act, which applies to studies on land
as well as in the ocean. Studies on acoustic thermometry, multibeam,
acoustic Doppler current profilers, Chirp sonar, multichannel seismic
sources, and submarine cables are all affected and he would like to see
NSF become more involved. Because NSF is the key federal science
research agency it is important that they play a role in setting the
regulations. Dr. Orcutt thinks that GEO should make recommendations.

## GPRA Discussion

Mr. William Smith, GEO Staff Associate for Budget, outlined the GPRA
requirements. Each Federal agency must submit a strategic plan (5 year
time horizon, updated every three years); an annual performance plan;
and an annual performance report. The AC/GEO is asked to assess GEO's
performance and present the assessment by December 1, 2000. The COVs
review of program results and procedures and their schedules must be
coordinated with GPRA. The outcome goals are the most critical for the
AC/GEO to consider.

## O/D Guidance and GEO Issues for Discussion with the Deputy Director

The AC/GEO itemized the issues that would be introduced in the
discussion with Dr. Bordogna:

-   Feedback from OMB about the GPRA. The OMB representative said there
    has been feedback from Congressional reviewers, GAO, and also from
    the public. The range has been from very good to very poor. Dr.
    Leinen said that there is difficulty in getting agreement from OMB
    and Congress as to what is excellent performance. The criteria for
    assessment are more applicable to service organizations that can do
    quantitative assessments rather than agencies such as NSF, which
    must make qualitative assessments.

-   Staffing problems at NSF.

-   Overlap in the initiatives.

Dr. Kolb outlined a letter from Dr. Joseph Bordogna, dated October 19,
2000, providing guidelines for the AC's assessment of directorate
performance for GPRA for FY 2000. There were some modifications of the
previous year's guidelines. Dr. Kolb presented his assessment of the
GPRA report for FY 2000. He discussed the examples given to demonstrate
the success of the goals and said that the major difference between this
and last year's assessment is that there is more data available for
Goals 3 and 4, which have to do with diversity of the workforce and
improved math and science education, respectively. Dr. Simpson asked Dr.
Kastens to add examples of the success of the diversity programs. There
was a discussion about Table 2, *NSF Goals by Type of Goal, Performance
Rating and Program Emphasis for* *GEO*, in the draft report. Dr. Killeen
said that GEO's performance rating of 68% in the "Use of Merit Review"
in the area of investment goals makes GEO stand out because the NSF goal
is "at least 80%." Dr. Simpson said we have to concentrate on outcomes.

## Meeting with NSF Deputy Director

Dr. Bordogna reported a 13.6% increase in the NSF budget, and cited the
goal to double it in 5 years. He said that the Federal agencies are
still not up to speed on the GPRA reports. Although NSF gets high
approval ratings for their financial reporting, they are only fair in
performance goals. Some outcomes are not clearly measurable and he
suggested proposing an alternative approach. He stressed the importance
of using "success stories" and also the good publicity provided by
documents such as the MPS document, *Reinvestment Initiative in Science
and Engineering (RISE).* The budget was packaged in core disciplines and
initiatives and should be split 40/60%.

Members of the AC/GEO introduced the following topics for discussion:

-   Dr. Michael Hochella asked about the content and substance of
    feedback from OMB. Dr. Bordogna said that OMB is very pleased and
    likes the initiatives but agrees they should phase out in 5 years.
    Dr. Talley asked if feedback is useful and Dr. Bordogna answered in
    the affirmative.

-   Dr. Killeen asked what kind of success stories would be the most
    effective and also what part should GEO play in the initiatives,
    since they are all interwoven. Dr. Bordogna responded that the
    stories should be comprehensive and not just address one or two
    criteria. For the initiatives the interplay and comingling of
    disciplines are good because that will encourage more proposal
    submissions. He agreed that GEO is in a good place to be a central,
    integral force in the initiatives.

-   Dr. Parrish asked Dr. Bordogna to comment on the staffing shortages
    at NSF. Industry has learned that there is a limit to the amount of
    work one person can do. Because of the initiative process, most NSF
    staff have a double workload. Proposal outcomes may be affected
    adversely. She noted that Dr. Bordogna encourages an even greater
    proposal submission because of the initiatives, but the success rate
    is only about 5%, and a big proposal workload will increase the
    reviewer workload. Dr. Bordogna responded that NSF is going to have
    to solve these staffing problems. Some of the budget increase is for
    administration and management. He is aware of the shortage and NSF
    is hiring more people and has recently leased additional space.

### Follow-up Discussion of Issues Raised Above

Concern was expressed about Dr. Bordogna's encouraging proposal
submission but then limiting the number and the reviewer workload, and
the issue of the 5% success rate. Dr. Fung asked whether proposals rated
as excellent but not funded could be reconsidered at a later date.
Dr. Leinen said that it's possible but usually isn't done. Dr. Leinen
said that the Biocomplexity Initiative had only a 5% success rate but
that could be improved by making the solicitation more focused, thereby
allowing panels and reviewers with expertise in that area.

Dr. Jarvis Moyers said that reviewing proposals is a lot of work and ITR
will employ a pre-proposal method. Dr. Bordogna had remarked that there
were over 600 rated as excellent and not funded. Dr. Kolb said we should
only consider whether the questions are too broad or not broad enough
and whether they are probing the frontier. Dr. Parrish said that if the
solicitations for the initiatives are written broadly and the best are
picked, those should be used to narrow the focus for the next time. Dr.
Kolb said that doubling the budget would solve the problem. It was
decided that the AC/GEO would write a letter to the Director voicing
these concerns.

## Discussion of GEO 2000: Implementation and Infrastructure

Dr. Leinen asked the AC/GEO to look at the challenges set forth by "NSF
Geosciences Beyond 2000" with the following issues in mind: how NSF/GEO
will address science in the future; and the timeline and budget for
implementation. She reviewed the research agenda goals: planetary
structure; planetary energetics and dynamics; planetary ecology; and
planetary metabolism. She asked the AC/GEO to consider:

-   Elements of the science plan addressed by GEO's regular programs and
    those not addressed.

-   Activities necessary to develop programs to address both.

Dr. Leinen noted that the implementation plan will include NSF-wide
initiatives, MREs, and mid-size infrastructure. Planning should include
workshops, both within specific programs and between programs that have
worked together regularly. Workshops dealing with diversity and
education issues should be included. She stressed the importance of
having an internal plan to implement GEO 2000 and said that the AC/GEO
could help by providing suggestions for cross-division,
cross-directorate, and cross-Foundation program development; advise on
mechanisms to fund mid-size facilities; and continue advising on
education and diversity.

Comments following the presentation focused on the problem of tools. Dr.
Kastens commented that complicated tools require more technical people
and asked if NSF is concerned about this since GEO 2000 deals more with
technical equipment than technical people. Dr. Simpson said we should be
thinking about the next great GEO initiative and maybe GEO should think
about IPAs for staffing. Dr. Leinen said there are limits to
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) positions. Dr. Simpson suggested
that we look at that as an investment issue. We need help in connecting
to the other directorates and we need to encourage and stimulate that.

Dr. Roger Bales commented on the carbon cycle. Dr. Leinen responded that
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is looking to the
agencies for an implementation plan. Dr. Bales said there are long-term
measurements that are not being followed, e.g., water cycle and carbon
cycle planning. Dr. Leinen said we have to work with other agencies and
see what portion each will address and that she had highlighted that
issue in connection with tools.

Dr. Simpson talked about the RISE document and asked Dr. Leinen to
provide more information about the GEO 2000 implementation plan at the
next meeting and asked for suggestions in addressing the tools issue.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30.

### ***Tuesday, November 7, 2000***

Dr. Simpson called the meeting to order at 8:15. He said that an
important product of the meeting should be a consensus of what rating
the AC/GEO assigns for GPRA Goals 3 and 4.

## Education, Human Resources, and Diversity Implementation Plan

Dr. Kastens, Chair of the EHR Subcommittee, introduced Ms. Jewel
Prendeville, who discussed GEO\'s FY 2001 program, Opportunities for
Enhancing Diversity in the Geosciences. At the May meeting, the AC/GEO
said there was a lack of diversity in the geosciences. Since then a
workshop was held, a report was prepared, and a strategic plan was
drafted. The strategic plan included:

-   Goals and objectives of the geosciences diversity initiative

-   Types of activities that should be funded

-   Educational levels to target

-   Collaborations

The plan is to compile what is already known; identify exemplary
programs, and learn from other successful organizations. They contacted
people who had experience with minority programs and prepared a notebook
and an e-mail survey asking why students do not choose geosciences.
Reasons given were lack of awareness, other more attractive careers, and
cultural and social barriers.

Workshop attendees were chosen from across the geosciences and from
groups who had experience working with students from under-represented
groups. Their first goal is to increase participation in geosciences and
enhance geosciences education. The report recommended proceeding with
the program and building on what they have been doing. They also
recommended that the program be long-term, interdisciplinary, have
multiple year participation by students, and include mentors. Another
recommendation was that the program be broad, partnered with other
directorates, provide special training for institutions, and provide
funding to study why minority students don\'t choose geosciences.

Important objectives are to increase opportunities for geosciences
research students, facilitate and improve infrastructure, and foster
education and research collaborations. The next step is to write a final
strategic plan, a management plan, and issue a program announcement in
January 2001, to receive proposals in April 2001.

Dr. Kastens asked how long this initiative would last. Ms. Prendeville
said she hoped it was long-term because career tracks may start in high
school and continue through undergraduate and graduate school. Ms.
Prendeville said the program will provide for small as well as large
proposals. For the first year, \$3 M is allocated. Dr. Simpson said
activities should involve bringing in minority students but also
research to find out how to change things for the future. Mr. Ryan asked
if there were examples of success in the area. Ms. Prendeville said
SOARS has a very high retention rate and is a similar program and
ADVANCE is a new program initiative to support women in science.

## FY 2000 Education and Human Resources COV

Dr. Killeen said the Committee\'s charge was to review the integrity and
efficiency of GEO's education and diversity program and the outcomes and
outputs of NSF's investments. The COV reviewed the following programs:
Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT); K-12;
Professional Opportunities for Women in Research and Education (POWRE);
Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER); Research Experience
for Undergraduates (REU); Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI);
Awards to Facilitate Geosciences Education (AFGE); and Digital Library
for Earth System Education (DLESE). Most of the COV report concerns
AFGE. The COV found the AFGE program vibrant, healthy, and well managed.
They recommend that GEO work toward developing a more extensive and
mature education and outreach program for geosciences, building on the
success of the current program. The findings were:

-   The program was very successful on all four criteria

-   The program should continue and double in size over two years

-   The panel review and mail-in reviews should be enhanced in order to
    provide more feedback to unsuccessful Principal Investigators

-   Assessment and evaluation should be emphasized

-   A greater alignment with EHR should be developed

They expressed concern about what happens to catalyzed programs such as
DLESE, which started out as an AFGE program, and recommended that
re-evaluation should be ongoing and an AC/GEO activity. The AC/GEO
should also:

-   Make it more of a mainstream activity

-   Leverage DLESE

-   Engage a planning team from AC/GEO, the community, and NSF to
    support geoscientists in the Workforce of the 21st Century
    Initiative

-   Stimulate and further encourage community building

Dr. Simpson questioned the percentage of GEO funds targeted for
education and diversity. Dr. Killeen said that most of the programs
reviewed were Foundation-wide and that only a few - most notably AFGE
and DLESE - were GEO programs. Dr. Simpson made some suggestions for
improving the COV report and asked Dr. Killeen to edit the assessment
for GPRA Goal 3 (with regard to Geosciences ) which seemed negative. Dr.
Parrish said she endorses the statement in the report that there needs
to be some tracking mechanism of the winners of awards.

Dr. Kastens gave an update on DLESE. Activities include:

-   Two rounds of proposals since last May.

-   A summer leadership workshop was held in Bozeman, Montana.

-   The National SMET Digital Library (NSDL) has been launched.

-   There are working prototypes for Discovery System and for a metadata
    tool.

-   A DLESE diversity group has been formed.

-   There is a web site: http://www.dlese.org.

She expects interaction between DLESE and the research community because
it builds a connection to K-12 and community colleges, provides academic
career recognition for education innovation, and it raises expectations
among students for a quality education experience. In response to a
question from Dr. Herman Zimmerman about how the National SMET Digital
Library is funded, Dr. Kastens said there was a solicitation in EHR. She
said that when the COV reviewed DLESE, they thought there was
insufficient funding.

Dr. Mayhew reviewed the responses he got from e-mail questions about
AFGE in order to help evaluate Goal 2 of the GPRA, Science and Service
to Society. For the last three years, AFGE has been very successful and
the COV said it should continue, but questioned whether they should do
more and have follow-on programs or limit the program. He thinks more
evaluation is necessary before changes are made. Dr. Kastens said that
she thinks the response to Goal 4 could be rewritten more positively.

Dr. Leinen said that the CAREER program will have a COV in the Spring
and she asked for a volunteer from the AC/GEO to serve on that
committee. Dr. Parrish volunteered.

## Basic Research Opportunities in Earth Science (NAS)

Dr. Thomas Jordan, chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee
on Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences, said that NAS
began an assessment of basic research opportunities in response to a
request from NSF about two years ago. NAS organized a committee to
evaluate opportunities and identify high priority research in earth
sciences, emphasizing the connections between traditional science and
others and to discuss and explore earth science research opportunities.
Symposia were held in October 1998 (GSA) and December 1998 (AGU);
workshops were also conducted; and input was received from academia,
scientific societies and individuals. The Committee completed their
report \"Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences\" in April
2000. They found that among Federal agencies, only the NSF/EAR program
provides significant funding of fundamental research in all of the core
disciplines of earth sciences.

Dr. Jordan provided an overview of research opportunities in techniques
for deciphering the geological record of terrestrial change and extreme
events and computational technologies for realistic simulations of
dynamic geosystems. He outlined six areas of opportunities in basic
earth sciences: critical Zone; geobiology; Earth and planetary
materials; continents (EarthScope); deep interior; and planetary
science.

The committee recommended long-term support of investigator-driven
science and an increase in EAR funding of both core programs and
multidisciplinary research. It suggested establishing agency
partnerships in EarthScope and looking at how EAR can encourage
partnerships with other NSF directorates and other agencies. Within EAR
there are many opportunities for blending education with basic research
such as in training grants, expansion of fellowships, establishing
post-docs and sabbaticals, and increasing support of field work for
students. A funding target of \$68M was proposed, divided between core
programs and major initiatives.

## Visit by Dr. Rita Colwell

Dr. Rita Colwell, NSF Director, told the AC/GEO that the 13.6 % increase
in the budget showed that when the community works together it makes a
difference. She reassured them that even though EarthScope didn\'t get
into this budget she will try to get preliminary activities funded. She
said there is still work to do to increase the NSF budget to \$10-12B.

Dr. Bales asked what message should be conveyed to Congress. Dr. Colwell
responded that the funds allocated for the initiatives are very small,
and more disciplinary funds are needed for interdisciplinary research.
She will request that OMB more than double the core budget. She has
proposed a 5-year budget to them for initiatives. The Workforce
Initiative is going to involve all directorates, and not just EHR. Dr.
Orcutt asked about long-term observations and whether the National
Oceans Partnership Program (NOPP) has a future. Dr. Colwell said that
NASA is interested and also NSF is investigating partnering with the
Office of Naval Research, NOAA, and DOD. She sees interagency
cooperation increasing but thinks NSF should be a leader in basic
research.

Dr. Leinen thanked Dr. Inez Fung, Dr. Emi Ito, and Dr. Charles Kolb, who
are rotating off the AC/GEO, and presented them with certificates of
appreciation.

## Working Lunch: Reports from the Subcommittee Chairs

*Meeting of the Atmospheric Sciences Subcommittee*

Dr. Charles Kolb, Chair, summarized the subcommittee discussions. The
COV, chaired by Dr. Fung, reviewed ATM's UCAR and Lower Atmospheric
Facilities Oversight Section (ULAFOS). Dr. Kolb said the subcommittee
found the COV very thorough and requested that it be accepted, but for
the next COV, he would like to effect a change in the template for the
COV's management process because part of it is not adequate for
reviewing facilities. The COV also recommends adding an ITR specialist
to the GEO staff because of the NCAR and UCAR facilities. The
subcommittee looked at the GPRA draft document and were satisfied with
the responses to Goals 1 and 2 but thought that Table 2 should be
revised to make it more positive. They suggested looking at Goal 3 in
the COV because UCAR and NCAR are highlighted and would like to see the
same wording included in the Directorate's GPRA report.

Dr. Killeen , Director of NCAR, talked about NCAR demographic challenges
and said a commitment to hire new scientists is needed. He sees NCAR as
an integrator and there are 10 commissioned self-organized working
groups looking at a research focus for NCAR. Educational technology is
one that was suggested.

*Meeting of the Earth Sciences Subcommittee*

Dr. Emi Ito, Chair, provided a summary of the Earth Sciences
Subcommittee meeting. There are staff vacancies and personnel changes
and the research grants section is reorganizing. The subcommittee is
very concerned about the increased workload of staff because of the
initiatives. They discussed the grand challenges of NAS and the
Biocomplexity Initiative and are concerned about implementing the NAS
recommendations. They suggest that EAR activity should match the
recommendations. There was not a lot of detailed discussion about GPRA
Goals 3 and 4 but they thought both should be rated "Successful." The
group questioned whether there has to be an accomplishment for that
rating or whether it is enough to demonstrate progress. They feel that
there has been much progress made in diversity. Dr. Hochella will be the
new chair of the subcommittee.

*Meeting of the Ocean Sciences Subcommittee*

Dr. John Orcutt, Chair, provided a summary of the Ocean Sciences
Subcommittee discussions. He reviewed the Division's reorganization and
said that some sections are without section heads. They discussed the
status of the Division's decadal report which will be available soon.
They also discussed ocean observatories and long-term data collection. A
major issue is data policy and how the data is handled in the field of
ocean sciences. There is no coherent program for managing data.
Biological data is the biggest problem because samples of dredging that
were handled by individual investigators were not properly catalogued
and there has been no long-term access. They asked the Division to look
at this problem. There was a lot of input from OCE program managers at
their meeting. They would like to see the time for the subcommittee
meetings extended because two hours is not enough. Concerning GPRA, they
had questions on Table 2. They said that a solicitation for the Center
for Ocean Sciences Education Excellence (COSEE) is planned for Fall 2001
(K-12 and undergraduate) and that would be a contribution to Goal 3 in
the future.

At the completion of the subcommittee reports, the AC/GEO noted some
issues that would be included in the letters to Dr. Leinen and Dr.
Colwell.

-   Addition of an ITR-capable staff person to the Division of
    Atmospheric Sciences

-   Suggest a change to the template for the COVs for evaluating
    facilities.

Dr. Kolb said the COV had to spend a lot of time trying to fit their
evaluation of the facilities into the template provided. Dr. Killeen
explained that the science the facilities supported is excellent and
competitive and that if the end process is successful it should be
considered successful, but Dr. Kolb said the COV questions are not the
right ones for facilities. Dr. Leinen said she will meet with the
Division of Atmospheric Sciences on that issue. She also asked Dr.
Orcutt to make suggestions.

## NSF Initiatives Part II: Nanoscale Science and Engineering (NSE)

Dr. Mihail Roco, Directorate for Engineering, chairs the Interagency
Working Group on Nanoscience Engineering and Technology (IWGN). He also
chairs the Foundation-wide Nanoscale Science and Engineering Initiative.
Dr. Roco explained nanometer structures and showed examples of
nanobiomotors. He said we are just at the beginning in this field and
the challenge is to assemble nanoscale structures which are useful with
DNA. He gave examples of nanotechnology applications:

-   Nanolayers in hard disk heads

-   Nanostructured chemical catalysts

-   Advanced drug delivery

-   Nanolayers with selective optical barriers

-   Hard coatings, dispersions

-   Water purification and desalinization.

To illustrate, Dr. Roco said if one used nanotechnology, all the
information housed at the Library of Congress could be condensed to the
size of a sugar cube. Cancerous tumors could be detected when they are
only a few cells in size. The proposed spending for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative for FY 2001 for all agencies combined is \$423
M.

Dr. David Lambert, Division of Earth Sciences, the GEO representative
for the NSE, announced that November 2 was the deadline for the NSF
proposals. The NSF NSE budget for FY 2001 is \$74 M. GEO\'s portion is
\$1.8 M. The funding level and proposals received are:

-   Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (\$51M, 377 proposals
    received)

-   Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (\$420M, 72 proposals
    received, 2 GEO)

-   Nanoscale Exploratory Research (\$3M, 260 proposals received).

Dr. Kolb said that the attitude toward private industry implies that
they have nothing to bring and he thinks private industry is necessary
to nanotechnology. Dr. Roco responded that NSF can't sponsor research
from private industry but Dr. Kolb disagreed and suggested that a whole
segment of the research community should not be ruled out. Dr. Killeen
noted that GEO's portion of the funds (\$1.8 M) shows that they think
that GEO\'s contribution is going to be small and he would like to see
the amount increased. Dr. Roco agreed that there is nanoscience that
could be accomplished in GEO, and he would like to see the Initiative
broadened. Dr. Leinen said she hoped there would be a bigger budget next
year.

Dr. Hochella said he has worked for 25 years in the field as an earth
scientist but he's also a nanoscientist. Nanoscale at first glance seems
at odds with the earth sciences but he gave examples of their alliance,
such as the scanning tunneling microscope, critical zone biogeology,
fluid interactions, and groundwater chemistry. He said we need to
cross-train students with courses in geochemistry and microbiology so
that they can become the special scientists of the future.

## GPRA Report

Dr. Simpson said the AC/GEO will rate all four criteria as "successful,"
but they need to rewrite Goals 3 and 4. Dr. Fung said she has already
made some changes and Dr. Kastens said she will do the same. Mr. Smith
said he would like to see some of the points made in the "Assessment"
document included in the GPRA report. Dr. Simpson again asked Mr. Smith
to review Table 2 of the GPRA report, in particular the 68% for GEO
performance in the "use of merit review." Mr. Smith explained the
numbers and the reasons for differences and said that UCAR and NCAR are
not merit reviewed. Dr.Leinen said it might help to footnote that there
is a different kind of review for the FFRDCs. It was decided to mention
the 18% GEO Performance when NSF's goal is 30% in "Maintaining Openness
in the System" in the letters to Drs. Colwell and Leinen. Dr. Simpson
said he was pleased with the ratings for the outcome goals.

## COV Approval

Dr. Simpson asked for approval of the COVs. A motion was received and
seconded for both COVs as presented. The motion was accepted.

Ms. Vanessa Richardson requested a volunteer to replace Charles Kolb as
the GPRA liaison.

The next meeting of the AC/GEO is scheduled for April 17-18, 2001.

The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.

ACTION ITEMS

Dr. Leinen asked for a volunteer for the CAREER COV. Dr. Parrish
volunteered.

The AC/GEO has been asked to participate in a Committee which has been
established for studying the Human Dimensions of Global Change. The plan
is to incorporate it into existing programs and develop some new program
elements.

Dr. Simpson asked Dr. Kastens to add examples of the success of the
diversity programs into the GPRA Report.

Dr. Bordogna suggested proposing an alternative approach for assessing
performance goals for GPRA since GEO is involved in activities (such as
centers) that are not clearly measurable.

Include in the letter to the Director the AC/GEO's concern for the low
success rates for the Foundation-wide initiatives.

Dr. Simpson asked Dr. Leinen to provide more information about the
implementation plan for GEO 2000 at the next meeting and also asked for
suggestions in addressing the tools issue.

Dr. Orcutt would like to see GEO get involved and address the difficulty
of getting permits for ocean studies.

The AC/GEO discussed the addition of an ITR-capable staff person to the
Division of Atmospheric Sciences.

The AC/GEO is concerned about Table 2 in the draft GPRA report,
particularly the rating of 68% when 80% is the expected outcome.

Dr. Simpson asked Dr. Killeen to edit the assessment for GPRA Goal 3
(with regard to Geosciences) in the EHR COV, which seemed negative in
its present form.

The Math Initiative group asked for suggestions for inclusion in their
solicitation.

For the next AC/GEO meeting, consider allowing more time for the
subcommittee sessions.