![](media/image1.png)

**NAtional Science Board**

DR. EAMON M. KELLY (*Chairman*), President Emeritus and Professor,
Payson Center for International Development & Technology Transfer,
Tulane University

DR. DIANA S. NATALICIO (*Vice Chairman*), President, The University of
Texas at El Paso

DR. JOHN A. ARMSTRONG, IBM Vice President for Science & Technology
(Retired)

DR. PAMELA A. FERGUSON, Professor of Mathematics, Grinnell College

DR. MARY K. GAILLARD, Professor of Physics, University of California,
Berkeley

DR. SANFORD D. GREENBERG, Chairman & CEO of TEI Industries, Inc.,
Washington, DC

DR. M.R.C. GREENWOOD, Chancellor, University of California, Santa Cruz

DR. STANLEY V. JASKOLSKI, Vice President, Eaton Corporation, Cleveland,
OH

DR. ANITA K. JONES, University Professor, Department of Computer
Science, University of Virginia

DR. GEORGE M. LANGFORD, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences,
Dartmouth College

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine Biology
and Distinguished Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University

DR. EVE L. MENGER, Director, Characterization Science and Services,
Corning Inc. (Retired)

DR. JOSEPH A. MILLER, JR., Senior Vice President for R&D and Chief
Technology Officer, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Experimental
Station, Wilmington, DE

DR. CLAUDIA I. MITCHELL-KERNAN, Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs and
Dean, Graduate Division, University of California, Los Angeles

DR. ROBERT C. RICHARDSON, Vice Provost for Research and Professor of
Physics, Cornell University

DR. VERA C. RUBIN, Research Staff, Astronomy, Department of Terrestrial
Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC

DR. MAXINE L. SAVITZ, General Manager, AlliedSignal Inc., Ceramic
Components, Torrance, CA

DR. LUIS SEQUEIRA, J. C. Walker Professor Emeritus, Departments of
Bacteriology and Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

DR. ROBERT M. SOLOW, Institute Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

DR. BOB H. SUZUKI, President, California State Polytechnic
University-Pomona

DR. RICHARD A. TAPIA, Professor, Department of Computational & Applied
Mathematics, Rice University

DR. CHANG-LIN TIEN, NEC Distinguished Professor of Engineering,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

DR. WARREN M. WASHINGTON, Senior Scientist and Head, Climate Change
Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

DR. JOHN A. WHITE, JR., Chancellor, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Dr. rita r. colwell, (Member *Ex Officio* and Chair, Executive
Committee), Director, National Science Foundation

DR. MARTA CEHELSKY, Executive Officer

**National Science Board**

**Committee on Programs and Plans**

**Task Force on the Environment**

**National Science Board members National Science Foundation staff**

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, *Chair* Dr. Mary Clutter, *Assistant Director*,

Biological Sciences

Dr. Mary K. Gaillard

Dr. Robert Corell, *Assistant Director*,

Dr. Robert Solow Geosciences

Dr. Warren Washington Dr. Penelope Firth, *Executive Secretary*

The National Science Board (NSB) consists of 24 members plus the
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Appointed by the
President, the Board serves as the governing board of NSF and provides
advice to the President and the Congress on matters of national science
and engineering policy.

# Foreword

The quality of life in the 21^st^ century will depend in large measure
on the generation of new wealth, on safeguarding the health of our
planet, and on opportunities for enlightenment and individual
development. The environment is a critical element of the knowledge base
we need to live in a safe and prosperous world.

In August 1998, the National Science Board established the Task Force on
the Environment, within its Committee on Programs and Plans, to provide
guidance to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in defining the scope
of its role with respect to environmental research, education, and
scientific assessment, and determining the best means of implementing
activities related to this area. The task force was charged with:

-   Reviewing the scope of current NSF activities related to research,
    education, and scientific assessment on the environment; and

-   Developing guidance for the National Science Foundation at the
    policy level that will be used for designing an appropriate
    portfolio of activities, consistent with the overall National
    Science and Technology Council (NSTC) strategy, the goals of the NSF
    Strategic Plan, and activities of other agencies and organizations
    that support related programs.

*Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21^st^ Century: The Role
of the National Science Foundation*, presents the findings and
recommendations developed by the Task Force on the Environment. This
report is being released as an interim document to provide ample
opportunity for discussion and consultation with the National Science
and Technology Council, other agencies, the scientific community, public
and private sectors, and other interested parties.

This interim report is based on extensive review of relevant policy
documents and reports, a process of hearings and consultations with
invested communities, invited commentary from a variety of organizations
and individuals, and feedback from through a public web site
\<http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/tfe\>. The task force also examined a wide
variety of environmental programs at NSF to determine the factors most
likely to result in effective new research and educational activities.

I want to commend Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the chair of the task force, and
the other task force members, NSB members Drs. Mary K. Gaillard, Robert
Solow, and Warren Washington; and Dr. Mary Clutter NSF Assistant
Director for Biological Sciences and Dr. Robert Corell, NSF Assistant
Director for Geosciences, for their outstanding work in pulling together
this important and complex report. Dr. Penelope Firth, Program Director
for Ecosystem Studies, provided superb support as the Executive
Secretary to the task force.

The task force has also been assisted in its efforts by many members of
the NSF staff, too numerous to mention individually. However, the
contributions of Dr. Robert Webber, Office of Information and Resource
Management, Ms. Anne Tenney, Office of the Director, and Ms. Jean
Pomeroy, National Science Board Office, deserve special note, as well as
Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh, Program Director for Inorganic, Bioinorganic,
and Organometallic Chemistry, and Dr. Robert Eisenstein, Assistant
Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

The Board is especially grateful for the strong support provided
throughout by the Director of the National Science Foundation, Dr. Rita
Colwell.

Eamon M. Kelly

Chairman

# Table of Contents

Foreword [i](#foreword)

Executive Summary [1](#executive-summary)

I. Introduction [7](#i.-introduction)

Goals for NSF's Environmental Portfolio
[8](#goals-for-nsfs-environmental-portfolio)

II\. The Larger Context for Environmental Research, Education, and
Scientific Assessment
[9](#ii.-the-larger-context-for-environmental-research-education-and-scientific-assessment)

III\. Scope of Current NSF Environmental Activities
[12](#iii.-scope-of-current-nsf-environmental-activities)

Research [12](#research)

A Diverse Portfolio across the Foundation
[12](#a-diverse-portfolio-across-the-foundation)

New Directions [14](#new-directions)

Education [16](#education)

Scientific Assessment [18](#scientific-assessment)

IV\. Input Received from External Sources about Unmet Needs and
Opportunities
[19](#iv.-input-received-from-external-sources-about-unmet-needs-and-opportunities)

V. Findings and Recommendations [25](#v.-findings-and-recommendations)

General Findings and Recommendations
[25](#general-findings-and-recommendations)

Keystone Recommendations [26](#keystone-recommendations-1)

Specific Findings and Recommendations
[26](#specific-findings-and-recommendations)

Research [26](#research-1)

Education [28](#education-1)

Scientific Assessment [30](#scientific-assessment-1)

Physical Infrastructure [30](#physical-infrastructure)

Technological Infrastructure [31](#technological-infrastructure)

Information Infrastructure [32](#information-infrastructure)

Partnerships, Coordination and Collaborations
[32](#partnerships-coordination-and-collaborations)

VI\. Conclusion [33](#vi.-conclusion)

Appendix A - Charge: Task Force on the Environment
[35](#appendix-a---charge-task-force-on-the-environment)

Appendix B - Literature Listing Compiled and Considered by the Task
Force [36](#__RefHeading___Toc457903293)

Appendix C - Individuals and Organizations that Provided Comments to the
Task Force
[55](#appendix-c---individuals-and-organizations-that-provided-comments-to-the-task-force)

Appendix D - Context for NSF's Approach to Support in the Environmental
Area
[59](#appendix-d---context-for-nsfs-approach-to-support-in-the-environmental-area)

Appendix E - Selected Centers Supported by NSF in Fiscal Year 1998
[61](#appendix-e---selected-centers-supported-by-nsf-in-fiscal-year-1998)

Appendix F - Selected Acronyms [64](#appendix-f---selected-acronyms)

**BOXES**

Box 1. Nature's Services: What Ecosystems Provide to People, What is at
Risk and Why New Interdisciplinary Knowledge is Required
[66](#box-1.-natures-services-what-ecosystems-provide-to-people-what-is-at-risk-and-why-new-interdisciplinary-knowledge-is-required)

Box 2. New Insight into Infectious Diseases: An Emerging Interface
Between Health and the Environment
[67](#box-2.-new-insight-into-infectious-diseases-an-emerging-interface-between-health-and-the-environment)

Box 3. Unprecedented Environmental Changes: New Challenges for Humanity
[69](#box-3.-unprecedented-environmental-changes-new-challenges-for-humanity)

Box 4. Nitrogen: Newly Discovered Links Between Agriculture, Energy,
Health, Fisheries, Tourism and Climate
[71](#box-4.-nitrogen-newly-discovered-links-between-agriculture-energy-health-fisheries-tourism-and-climate)

Box 5. Complexity Theory and Ecosystems
[72](#box-5.-complexity-theory-and-ecosystems)

Box 6. New Goals for Environmental Technology
[74](#box-6.-new-goals-for-environmental-technology)

Box 7. The Information Explosion and the Technology Revolution
[75](#box-7.-the-information-explosion-and-the-technology-revolution)

Box 8. Genomics and Environmental Research
[76](#box-8.-genomics-and-environmental-research)

Box 9. Human Dimensions of Environmental Questions
[77](#box-9.-human-dimensions-of-environmental-questions)

Box 10. The Ocean Beneath the Sea Floor
[79](#box-10.-the-ocean-beneath-the-sea-floor)

Box 11. Statistical Prevention Models for Wildfire Suppression
[80](#box-11.-statistical-prevention-models-for-wildfire-suppression)

**FIGURES**

Figure 1: Human dominance of major components of the Earth system 70

Figure 2: Venting hydrothermal deposit 79

**TABLES**

Table 1: Programmatic gaps 29

Table 2: Example technologies 32

# Executive Summary

## Context and Framework for the Study

The promise and opportunities for our Nation in the decades ahead will
depend on the role that science and technology can play in the
generation of new wealth, in safeguarding the health of our planet, on
opportunities for learning and individual development, and on the
integration of our national interests into a global perspective. The
environment, in this context, is a vigorous, essential, and central
theme in both domestic and international affairs.

Investments by the National Science Foundation have played a key role in
significantly increasing our understanding of the environment.
Fundamental research has elucidated the physical, biological, chemical,
geological, and societal interactions, dynamics, and functions of such
issues as the health and vitality of ecosystems, the predictability of
weather, the role that oceanic currents play in climate, projections on
sea level changes, the evolution of animal and plant species, and
changes in terrestrial and marine ecosystems. NSF is one of the largest
supporters of environmental research in the Federal government and the
major supporter of environmental research conducted by the academic
community. Consistent with NSF's primary mission, these funds primarily
go to awards based on external, peer-reviewed national competition, and
these investments provide advances in fundamental understanding of
environmental systems. Therefore, the NSF, because of this mission and
record of accomplishment, should provide a more vigorous intellectual
and leadership role in advancing new insights and fundamental knowledge
essential to addressing a range of emerging environmental issues.

NSF activities must complement and enhance, not duplicate or replace,
the extant portfolio of other Federal activities in this area. The
National Science Foundation and other Federal agencies and interagency
coordinating bodies, such as the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC), have responded to the need for research, education and
scientific assessment activities in many environmental areas. However,
the scope of the emerging environmental issues in our Nation and around
the world suggests a need to evaluate the challenges and opportunities
that these critical issues raise for the NSF. Therefore, the National
Science Board established a Task Force on the Environment, whose
findings are detailed in this report, along with a set of
recommendations to set the stage for a more vigorous role of the NSF in
environmental research, education, and scientific assessments in the
21^st^ century.

## Strategy for the Conduct of the Study

The Board, through its Task Force on the Environment, conducted hearings
and town meetings, solicited input from scientists, government agencies,
and the private sector, reviewed hundreds of reports and documents
related to environmental research, education and assessments, and sought
suggestions through a public web-site. Hundreds of suggestions and
recommendations were received and considered from this spectrum of
documents and from scholars in every scientific discipline. Comments
were received from community groups, local and Federal agency officials,
professional societies, non-governmental organizations, and concerned
citizens. In addition, the Board examined a variety of programs at NSF
to determine the factors most likely to result in effective research,
education and scientific assessment activities. The Board focused on the
overall level, scope, robustness, balance, funding, and organization of
environmental activities of the Foundation.

## 

## Principal Findings

A number of themes emerged from this diverse set of inputs. Foremost
among them was a strong endorsement of the fundamental operating
principles of NSF. At the same time, the Board heard many ideas that
framed ways in which NSF could and should develop its environmental
portfolio. The majority of these focus on enhancing the disciplinary and
interdisciplinary fundamental understanding of environmental systems and
problems, improving the systematic acquisition of data, the analysis and
synthesis of these data into useful information, and the dissemination
of this information into understandable formats for multiple uses. It
was clear throughout the public-input process that citizens, many
governmental officials, other Federal agencies, professional scientific
and engineering societies, and individual scientists look to the NSF for
leadership in environmental research, education and scientific
assessment. The strong message running throughout the input process was
that NSF is poised and is expected to respond vigorously to the new
challenges of providing and communicating the fundamental knowledge base
and educating and training the workforce to meet the environmental
challenges of the next century. A parallel message underscored the
requirement for significant new resources to accomplish these goals and
an effective organizational structure to implement NSF's total
environmental portfolio.

## Recommendations

## 

The NSF is supporting significantly more environmental research and
education than is generally appreciated. However, the Nation's need for
fundamental environmental knowledge and understanding requires further
attention. To expand and strengthen the Foundation's environmental
portfolio, the Board has developed twelve recommendations which are
organized into (a) two overarching keystone recommendations that address
critical funding resources and organizational issues, (b) five
recommendations on research, education, and scientific assessment, (c)
four crosscutting recommendations that address physical, technological
and information infrastructure, and (d) one recommendation that
addresses the importance of partnerships, collaborations, and
coordination to NSF's programs and activities in research, education,
and scientific assessments.

## Keystone Recommendations

[**Resources and Funding (Recommendation 1**)]{.underline}:
Environmental research, education and scientific assessment should be
one of the highest priorities of the National Science Foundation. The
current environmental portfolio, an investment of approximately \$600
million, represents only about one-third of the resources necessary. In
view of the overwhelming importance and exciting opportunities for
progress in the environmental arena, and because existing resources are
fully and appropriately utilized, new resources will be required.
Therefore, we recommend that environmental research, education and
scientific assessment at NSF be increased by an additional \$1 billion
over the next 5 years.

**[Organizational Approach (Recommendation 2)]{.underline}:** NSF
management should develop an effective organizational approach that
meets all of the criteria required to ensure a well-integrated, high
priority, high visibility, cohesive, and sustained environmental
portfolio within the NSF. These criteria include:

1.  A high-visibility, NSF-wide organizational focal point with:

-   Principal responsibility for identifying gaps, opportunities and
    priorities, particularly in interdisciplinary areas;

-   Budgetary authority for enabling integration across research,
    education, and scientific assessment, and across areas of inquiry;

-   Responsibility for assembling and publicizing, within the context of
    the Foundation's normal reporting, a clear statement of NSF's
    environmental activities;

-   A formal advisory process specifically for environmental activities.

2.  Continuity of funding opportunities, in particular in
    interdisciplinary areas.

3.  Integration, cooperation and collaboration with and across
    established programmatic areas, within NSF and between NSF and its
    sister Federal agencies.

## Research Recommendations

As the fields of environmental research have matured intellectually,
their requirements for knowledge across all scientific, engineering and
mathematics disciplines have increased. The Board finds that meeting
this challenge will require increasing disciplinary research efforts
across all environmental fields. Information and understanding from
certain disciplines that are especially relevant to environmental
problems are often lacking. Most environmental issues are
interdisciplinary, and their drivers, indicators and effects propagate
across extended spatial and temporal scales. Increased resources are
needed for interdisciplinary, long-term, large-scale, problem-based
research and monitoring efforts. In addition, special mechanisms may be
required to facilitate successful interdisciplinary programs.

**[Disciplinary Research (Recommendation 3)]{.underline}**:
Environmental research within all relevant disciplines should be
enhanced, with significant new investments in research critical to
understanding biocomplexity, including the biological/ecological and
social sciences and environmental technology.

**[Interdisciplinary Research (Recommendation 4):]{.underline}**
Interdisciplinary research requires significantly greater investment,
more effective support mechanisms, and strengthened capabilities for
identifying research needs, prioritizing across disciplines, and
providing for their long-term support.

**[Long-Term Research (Recommendation 5):]{.underline}** The Foundation
should significantly increase its investments in existing long-term
programs and establish new support mechanisms for long-term research.

### 

## Education Recommendation

The role of the NSF is to create educational and training opportunities
that enhance scientific and technological capacity associated with the
environment, across both the formal and informal educational enterprise.
Environmental education and training should be science based, but should
be given a renewed focus on preparing students for broad career horizons
and should integrate new technologies, especially information
technologies, as much as possible. The twin goals of learning are to
gain knowledge and to acquire skills such as problem solving, consensus
building, information management, communication, and critical and
creative thinking.

**[Environmental Education (Recommendation 6):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should enhance its formal educational efforts by encouraging
submission of proposals that capitalize on the inherent student interest
in environmental areas while supporting significantly more environmental
educational efforts through informal vehicles. All Foundation-supported
education activities should at their core recognize potential and
develop the capacity for excellence in all segments of society, whether
or not they have been part of the scientific and engineering traditions.

## Scientific Assessment Recommendation

The Board defines scientific assessment, for the purposes of this
report, as inquiry-based analysis of relevant biological, socioeconomic
and physical environmental scientific information to provide an informed
basis for 1) prioritizing scientific investments and 2) addressing
environmental issues. The role of the NSF is to facilitate the
development of methods and models of scientific assessment and foster
the conduct of scientific analyses of environmental issues, both
domestically and internationally. Research on how to do effective,
credible and helpful scientific assessments is timely. In addition, the
Board finds that there is an identified need for a credible, unbiased
approach to defining the status and trends, or trajectory, of
environmental patterns and processes. Such assessments, coordinated
across the Federal sector and, where appropriate, internationally are
needed for setting scientific priorities and for summarizing scientific
information for decision-makers.

**[Scientific Assessments (Recommendation 7):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should significantly increase its research on the methods and
models that support the scientific assessment process. In addition, NSF
should, with due cognizance of the activities of other agencies, enable
an increased portfolio of scientific assessments for the purpose of
prioritizing research investments and for synthesizing scientific
knowledge in a fashion useful for policy and decision-making.

## Infrastructure Recommendations

Environmental research depends heavily on effective physical
infrastructure. These include environmental observatories complemented
by high-speed communications links, powerful computers, well-constructed
databases, natural history collections that provide a baseline against
which to measure environmental change, and both traditional and virtual
centers that pull together interdisciplinary teams. The Board finds that
an important role of the NSF is to facilitate the development of
facilities, instrumentation, and other infrastructure that enables
discovery, including the study of processes and interactions that occur
over long-time scales.

**[Enabling Infrastructure (Recommendation 8):]{.underline}** High
priority should be given to enhancing infrastructure for environmental
observations and collections as well as new information networking
capacity. A suite of environmental research and education hubs should be
created, on the scale of present Science and Technology Centers and
Engineering Research Centers, that might include physical and/or virtual
centers, site-focused and/or problem-focused collaboratories, and
additional environmental information synthesis and forecasting centers.

The Board finds that a critical role of NSF is to foster research that
seeks to develop innovative technologies and approaches that assist the
Nation in conserving its environmental assets and services. The NSF
could facilitate an effort to identify technologies that represent
order-of-magnitude improvements over existing environmental
technologies, and−in communication with other Federal agencies, the
academic community and the private sector−define the scientific and
engineering research needed to underpin these technologies.

**[Environmental Technology (Recommendation 9)]{.underline}:** The
Foundation should vigorously support research on environmental
technologies, including those that can help both public and private
sectors avoid environmental harm and permit wise utilization of natural
resources.

The Board further finds that technological advances are often keystone
enabling elements that profoundly advance scientific research. The
future of scientific research, education, and scientific assessments
will increasingly depend on new and advanced technological developments
in instrumentation, information technologies, facilities, observational
platforms, and innovative tools for science and engineering.

**[Enabling Technologies (Recommendation 10)]{.underline}:** The
Foundation should enable and encourage the use of new and appropriate
technologies in environmental research and education.

The Board finds that the role of NSF, in partnership with other Federal
agencies, is to stimulate the development of mechanisms and
infrastructure to synthesize and aggregate scientific environmental
information and to make it more accessible to the public.

**[Environmental Information (Recommendation 11):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should take the lead in enabling a coordinated, digital,
environmental information network. In addition, the NSF should catalyze
a study to frame a central source that compiles comparable,
quality-controlled time series of measurements of the state of the
environment.

## Partnerships, Coordination and Collaborations Recommendation

The Board finds that collaborations and partnerships are essential to
important and high-priority environmental research, education, and
scientific assessment efforts and are most effective when they are based
on intellectual needs. Partnerships, among federal agencies, with
non-governmental bodies (e.g., private sector entities, NGO's, and
others), and with international organizations can provide the
intellectual and financial leveraging to address a) environmental
questions at the local level, b) larger-scale regional issues, and c)
problems for which the research and the policy dimensions are
international. There are thus many opportunities to partner in
bilateral/multilateral agreements or via National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) science and engineering initiatives. The Board endorses
strong NSF participation in the coordinating mechanism provided through
NSTC.

The most effective partnerships involve the evolution of trust among
participants, strategic thinking processes to identify and evaluate
common interests and objectives, and relatively simple, flexible
administrative arrangements. They also require sufficient staff,
resources and time to mature.

**[Implementation Partnerships (Recommendation 12)]{.underline}**: The
NSF should actively seek and provide stable support for research,
education, and assessment partnerships that correspond to the location,
scale, and nature of the environmental issues. These partnerships and
interagency coordination should include both domestic and international
collaborations that foster joint implementation including joint
financing when appropriate. This report clearly establishes the need for
an expanded national portfolio of environmental R&D. Therefore, the
Board suggests that the NSTC, with advice from PCAST, reevaluate the
national environmental R&D portfolio, including identification of
research gaps and setting of priorities, and the respective roles of
different Federal agencies in fundamental environmental research and
education.

## Conclusion

Scientific understanding of the environment, together with an informed,
scientifically literate citizenry, is requisite to quality of life for
generations to come. As the interdependencies of fundamental and applied
environmental research become more evident, the NSF should capitalize on
the momentum gained in its past support for premium scholarship and
emerging new research areas and technologies. The time is ripe to
accelerate progress for the benefit of the Nation.

# I. Introduction 

The Strategic Plan of the National Science Board highlights the promise
and opportunity for science and engineering in the 21^st^ century: "If
in the 20^th^ century science and technology moved to the center of the
stage, in the 21^st^ century they will command it. Quality of life will
depend in large measure on the generation of new wealth, on safeguarding
the health of our planet, and on opportunities for enlightenment and
individual development. The contributions of research and education in
science and engineering make possible advances in all these areas."
(National Science Board 1998[^1]).

Within the broad portfolio of science and engineering for the new
century, the environment is emerging as a vigorous, essential, and
central focus. New discoveries have revealed unappreciated linkages
between the environment and human health, prosperity and well-being
(Boxes 1 and 2). At the same time that connections between humans and
the goods and services provided by the ecosystems of Earth become better
understood, the scale and rate of modifications to these ecosystems is
increasing (Box 3). Ongoing alterations to the biology, chemistry and in
some cases physical structure of the land, air, and water of the planet
will present formidable challenges in the years to come (Box 4).

Meeting these challenges will require significant scientific and
technological advances, rapid communication of new understanding to the
private and public sectors, and an informed electorate demanding and
capable of utilizing new knowledge. An improved understanding of the
dynamics of complex systems, especially complex biological systems, will
be essential (Box 5). New opportunities for environmentally benign
technologies will expand rapidly due to multiple developments that have
come to fruition as a result of past investment in very diverse areas of
scientific research (Box 6). New advances in information sciences,
biotechnology, materials science, mathematics, statistics, and social
science will enable formerly impossible imaging, analyzing, modeling,
engineering and decision-making opportunities (Boxes 7-11). Increased
awareness of the importance of intact, functioning ecological and social
systems will stimulate new requests by citizens and policy-makers for
timely, credible information about environmental changes. In short,
advances in environmental research, education and scientific assessment
are key to realizing significant improvements in human health,
prosperity and well being in the next century.

Environmental science and engineering are broadly interdisciplinary,
drawing upon, integrating and invigorating virtually all fields of
science and engineering. In addition to new disciplinary areas of
investigation, new interdisciplinary interfaces will drive significant
advances. These interdisciplinary perspectives will characterize not
only the research enterprise, but educational and scientific assessment
approaches as well. Moreover, large spatial and long temporal scales are
required to understand adequately many environmental phenomena. This
diverse and comprehensive nature of scientific environmental activities
poses particular challenges to ensure quality, integration, and
continuity across disciplines, over space and through time.

The National Science Foundation, other Federal agencies, and interagency
coordinating bodies such as the Committee on Environment and National
Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
are responding to the need for research, education and scientific
assessment activities in many environmental areas. However, the
magnitude of the challenges and the timeliness of opportunities indicate
that a whole new level of integrated activities and programs will be
required in the near future (see, for example, PCAST 1998). Meeting this
challenge will require (1) significant new scientific advances, (2)
improved public understanding of environmental topics, (3) more
effective communication of new knowledge, and (4) incorporation of new
knowledge into policies and practices. NSF has significant
responsibilities in the first three of these areas.

Because of its mission and track record, NSF is poised to provide a more
vigorous and intellectual leadership role. NSF can provide the
fundamental understanding of the complexity of the Earth's environmental
envelope and its human interactions through discovery, focused education
and training, information dissemination, and scientific assessments.
This role is consistent with NSF's mission -- "to promote the progress
of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure national defense..." (NSF Act of 1950).

As part of its ongoing responsibilities for oversight of the National
Science Foundation, the National Science Board posed the question: What
should the environmental portfolio of the Foundation look like, within
the context of the larger Federal agency suite of activities, in order
to provide and communicate the knowledge required to respond to current
and future environmental challenges? The Board focused on the overall
level, the balance, and the organization of the environmental activities
of the Foundation. Its findings are summarized in this report, beginning
with a description of the goals to be accomplished, a summary of current
and anticipated activities within the Foundation, a review of
suggestions and information received by the Board during its review, and
concluding with findings and recommendations.

## Goals for NSF's Environmental Portfolio

Within the context of the family of federal agencies, the following
goals should guide the design and implementation of the Foundation\'s
environmental portfolio:

-   Discovery across the fields of science and engineering to elucidate
    the processes and interactions among the atmosphere, biosphere,
    cryosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and socio-economic systems,
    thereby providing an integrated understanding of the natural status
    and dynamics of, and the anthropogenic influences on, the Earth's
    environmental envelope.

-   Education and training that enhance scientific and technological
    capacity associated with the environment, across both the formal and
    informal educational enterprise; and

-   Effective integration and dissemination of research results to
    multiple audiences, including scientific, public, and policy
    audiences, and the private sector, via credible scientific
    assessments of broad environmental phenomena and the transfer of
    technological knowledge.

Achieving these goals will require a combination of physical,
technological, and information infrastructure, and partnerships:

-   Facilities, instrumentation, and other infrastructure that enable
    discovery, including the study of processes and interactions that
    occur over long time scales;

-   Research to develop innovative technologies and approaches that
    assist the Nation in conserving and wisely utilizing its
    environmental assets and services;

-   Mechanisms and infrastructure to synthesize and aggregate scientific
    environmental information and to provide open access to these
    informational materials; and

-   Partnerships with other Federal agencies, state and local
    governments, the private sector and other nations to advance
    knowledge, understanding and solutions.

With these goals and enabling infrastructural needs in mind, the Board
undertook an analysis of current and anticipated environmental
activities within the Foundation.

# II. The Larger Context for Environmental Research, Education, and Scientific Assessment

The national investment in science and engineering R&D produces a wide
variety of benefits ranging from new knowledge and new technologies to
new cures to more enlightened policies and practices. Multiple Federal
agencies contribute to the national investment in environmental science
and technology. Overall, the Federal Government currently supports an
environmental R&D portfolio that is estimated to be in excess of \$5
billion per year.

Collaboration and cooperation across agencies is enabled through
multiple mechanisms. In addition to the bilateral and multi-lateral
partnerships developed between individual agencies focusing on
environmental research, many efforts have been coordinated through the
White House. The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR)
of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), operating through
the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
coordinates environmental R&D activities. The President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) provides advice on the roles
of science and technology in achieving national goals.

Established in 1993 and chaired by the President, the cabinet-level NSTC
serves as an initiator and coordinator of interagency science and
technology research and development. The CENR is one of five committees
under the NSTC. With respect to the NSF, the NSTC/CENR informs and
influences the process by which the Foundation establishes research
priorities and responds to policy concerns. The NSF plays an active role
in a variety of important multi-agency activities of the CENR, including
the successful U.S. Global Change Research Program, the new Integrated
Science for Ecosystem Challenges activity, and the National Biological
Information Infrastructure (NBII), a CENR effort to set standards for
environmental information and make that information available to
researchers, industry, and the general public.

The CENR research agenda, published in 1995, provided the initial
framework for coordinating agency research programs to address
environmental issues in an integrated manner. The CENR has sought, and
continues to seek, advice from a wide range of stakeholders from
academia, industry, other private-sector groups, Congress, and state and
local governments. The CENR seeks to involve experts from all
stakeholder groups in conducting broad and credible national scientific
and technical assessments of the state of knowledge. The point of these
assessments is to develop consensus that explicitly acknowledges what is
known, what is unknown, and what is uncertain. The consensus
understanding can then be used to project the implications of
alternative policy options and to involve stakeholders and policymakers
in understanding the basis and uncertainties of those projections.

The term "assessment" is generally used to refer to two fundamentally
different activities: resource assessment and scientific assessment.
Resource assessment, evaluation of the quality and/or quantity of a
particular natural resource, is best done by the relevant Federal
management or regulatory agencies in cooperation with the cities,
states, or regional entities that are naturally involved. Scientific
assessment (also called knowledge assessment) is evaluation of the state
of existing knowledge, and often serves to identify new research
opportunities. Scientific assessments are particularly deserving of an
interagency partnership approach, as the agencies involved must be
prepared to act on the information resulting from the assessments and,
thus, must be part of the development of the assessment protocols. The
couplings of assessments to the needs of the mission agencies are clear,
and go well beyond the purview of the NSF. The NSF does have a role,
however, in enabling the synthesis, analysis, and clear communication of
research findings\-\--particularly basic research findings\-\-- in a
timely fashion. In addition, the NSF can provide a valuable service to
other agencies and to the scientific and engineering community by
supporting the development of explicit research agendas that articulate
research needs for environmental issue areas.

The CENR has also encouraged increased extramural research and
development in the overall mix of federal R&D. In addition, the CENR
recognizes the diversity of strengths afforded by the federal
laboratories, national laboratories (government owned, contractor
operated), universities, and private industry in environmental research.
As the CENR works to ensure that the capabilities and resources of each
of these sectors are appropriately integrated, it looks to the NSF for
leadership in supporting fundamental academic environmental research, in
ensuring that our academic institutions continue to provide an adequate
supply of well-trained scientists and engineers, and in laying the
foundation for a scientifically-literate citizenry.

New knowledge is perhaps the single most important driver of economic
growth and the most precious and fully renewable resource available to
individuals and societies to advance their material well-being[^2]. An
important approach to carrying out NSF's mission is to help the Nation
use new knowledge in science and engineering for the benefit of society.
The transfer of such knowledge is a vital ingredient in enhancing the
Nation's industrial competitiveness. NSF's knowledge transfer activities
are focused on building working relationships at the research project
level between academia, industry, and other potential users, such as
local and State governments[^3].

Immense advances in science and engineering have been made possible by
national policies assuring that discovery in science and engineering
serves national goals to promote economic growth, improve the quality of
life, and insure national security. As the interval between discovery
and industrial innovation becomes shorter, university-industry
partnerships must be strengthened to exploit new opportunities that will
arise in environmental technologies and supporting fields. Overall
industry sees strength in its ability to link inventions to markets and
to commercialize new technologies. It relies on a rich science and
technology base for future environmental technology innovations (Resetar
et al. 1999[^4]).

The environmental market is increasingly technology-driven, indicating
that suppliers must make continuing large research and development
expenditures. The large multinational environment companies are most R&D
intensive, spending 8 to 10 percent of turnover on research, while
smaller firms in lower-technology environmental sectors may spend less
than 2 percent of turnover on research and development (OECD 1992[^5]).
According to Resetar et al. (1999), from a company's point of view,
collaborative research on environmental technologies may be an
opportunity to share expenses for technologies necessary to comply with
environmental regulations. They may also be a way to reduce the risks
associated with introducing new technologies to comply with regulations
and the risks of environmental liability.

The Federal role in fostering R&D to advance environmental technologies
was articulated by NSTC[^6]:

• Appropriately balance avoidance, monitoring, control, and remediation
technologies, stressing the need for a shift toward technologies that
emphasize sustainable use of natural resources and avoidance of
environmental harm while still maintaining the commitment to remediate
past environmental damages.

• Focus federal R&D support on viable technologies that require
assistance to attract private-sector investment because of high
technical risk, long payback horizons, or instances in which the
anticipated returns are not evident to individual firms or distinct
industrial sectors.

• Foster international cooperation on understanding, monitoring, and
assessing environmental changes and impacts on a global or multinational
scale.

# III. Scope of Current NSF Environmental Activities

The NSF is a Federal funding agency, providing support that enables and
facilitates the performance of scientific and engineering research and
education. NSF makes merit-based awards to individual researchers and
groups, in partnership with colleges, universities, and other
institutions − public, private, local, state, and Federal − throughout
the Nation. These awards are made based on peer-reviewed national
competition. Appendix D provides information about the process and
criteria used to develop NSF's programs.

Spending on environmental activities − defined broadly to recognize the
full range of disciplines and fundamental research activities involved −
currently represents roughly 20 percent of the total NSF budget.
Expenditures totaled \$542M in FY 1998 with \$597M budgeted for
environmental activities in the FY 1999 Current Plan and \$671M
requested in the FY 2000 budget. Consistent with NSF's primary mission,
the majority of these funds go to integrated research and education
projects: scientific assessment, as defined later in this report,
receives modest support. By way of context, the larger Federal
investment in environmental R&D totaled \$5.3 billion in FY 1995 in the
most recent budget crosscut published by the NSTC Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources[^7].

## Research

NSF plays a key role in the Nation's investment in environmental R&D. It
is one of the largest supporters of environmental research in the
Federal government and the major supporter of environmental research
conducted by the academic community. Consistent with the mission of NSF,
this research provides advances in fundamental understanding of
environmental systems. This knowledge in turn drives new technologies
and other applications, enables sound policy and management decisions,
and provides the basis for improved human health, prosperity and well
being. As in other scientific and engineering arenas, NSF's
environmental research activities function as the fulcrum for advances
by other Federal agencies, state and local governments, the private
sector and citizens.

### A Diverse Portfolio across the Foundation

Investigation of fundamental environmental questions pervades the entire
scientific and engineering research enterprise. From the rigors of the
search for understanding microbial processes in Antarctic ice to tracing
contaminant effects in the Arctic ocean, from investigation of nanoscale
interactions on mineral surfaces to the influence of solar flares, from
the turnings of DNA to changes in animal migration patterns−researchers
supported by NSF continue an age-old quest to understand Earth's
lifeforms and their complex relationship to their physical habitat. In
the last few years, that search has been augmented by new tools for
discovery, including new genomic methods, increased computational
capacities, more sensitive and versatile analytical instrumentation, and
by increasing interest in interdisciplinary research. In addition,
concerns about the effects of human activity have led to increased
attention to development of environmentally benign advanced technologies
and deeper understanding of the social dimensions of environmental
systems.

The reach of environmental science and engineering is evident in NSF's
multiple approaches to funding and its broad portfolio of interests. The
new environmental challenges and opportunities increasingly require both
disciplinary and interdisciplinary advances. Ongoing core programs
define areas of interest and are continually revitalized by new ideas
from individuals or small groups of investigators whose proposals are
subjected to the rigors of the merit review process. In addition,
special competitions respond to new topical areas, are often
interdisciplinary in nature, and provide opportunities for interagency
cooperation. NSF's strategy is to enable these topical areas to mature,
and to foster connections among participating investigators, and then to
fold the area into ongoing programs, allowing new areas to emerge. Two
recent examples of highly successful multidisciplinary special
competitions include Environmental Geochemistry and Biogeochemistry,
which supports research on the chemical processes that determine the
behavior and distribution of inorganic and organic materials in
environments near the Earth's surface, and Life in Extreme Environments,
which addresses such fundamental questions as determining the
evolutionary and physiological processes that led to the formation and
adaptation of life on Earth. Center or large group activities provide a
framework for long-term studies of complex, cutting-edge topics. NSF
supports a number of centers that have environmental work as all or part
of their portfolio (Appendix E).

Terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems all around the world are
probed, sometimes through interdisciplinary approaches. Much of this
work is carried out in ongoing programs. At present, special initiatives
are being supported in such areas as investigation of harmful algal
blooms, life in extreme environments, and watershed scale research. Of
note in this area are the opportunities for long-term studies that are
essential to understanding ecosystem dynamics and the impact of
stressors. Many of these studies are carried out in the Long Term
Ecological Research (LTER) program, which is celebrating its 20^th^
anniversary.

Research on physical processes in the environment is a major effort
currently underway. Cycling of carbon, nitrogen, and other elements is
under active investigation and is driven not only by curiosity but also
by societal concerns about biogeochemical and climatic changes. New
space-based and remote sensing technologies have enabled large-scale
measurement and informative visualization. NSF supports research in
integrated interagency programs such as Climate Modeling, Analysis and
Prediction, and the World Ocean Circulation Experiment
(NSF/NASA/NOAA/ONR/DOE). In addition, ongoing programs support studies
of ocean, earth, and atmospheric systems.

NSF is interested in the role that humans play in contributing to
changes in the environment and to mitigating the effects of
environmental harm. Engineering, computational and mathematical
sciences, materials, and chemistry programs at NSF support work on
environmentally friendly industrial processes, materials synthesis,
natural hazards, and development of environmentally relevant sensors,
simulation methods, and database strategies. Some special initiatives in
these areas take advantage of opportunities to collaborate with other
agencies. For example, a joint NSF/EPA venture on environmental
statistics is developing algorithms for use on environmental problems
while another competition on decision-making and valuation focuses on
choices made by humans about the environment. Research on urban
communities attempts to identify the set of complex factors that enable
vigorous, healthy communities and sustainable growth.

A growing trend is the synthetic integration of data sets and the
increasing use of modeling. Such integration takes place both at large
centers such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and
the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), and
increasingly within individual investigator projects. These trends are
facilitated by high-speed computers, new software and modeling
methodologies that allow integration of disparate data sets, and the use
of integrated assessment techniques. New software and hardware for
computational analysis, modeling and simulation are leading to more
reliable models for ecosystem complexity across scales, integrated
assessments, forecasting and analysis of management options.

### New Directions

A new intellectual construct for NSF's activities in environmental
science and engineering is the theme Biocomplexity in the
Environment[^8] (BE). The title reflects the evolution of NSF thinking
about how NSF activities in this area can take advantage of
opportunities provided by recent advances in science and engineering and
best contribute to the overall program of Federal activities related to
the environment. BE incorporates and provides a broader context for the
earlier suite of activities entitled Life and Earth's Environment (LEE).

BE activities include disciplinary studies of components of
environmental systems as well as a variety of interdisciplinary efforts
to look at aspects of interaction among these components. Scientific
advances resulting from these lines of inquiry, combined with greatly
enhanced technological capabilities, now enable more comprehensive study
of phenomena at smaller scales, of relationships between scales, and of
a wider range of simultaneous and interactive processes. In FY 2000, NSF
will begin a focused initiative to study "biocomplexity", which
describes the dynamic behavior between living organisms and their
environments, in order to provide greater insight into the underlying
processes of environmental systems.

Biocomplexity research will integrate expanding knowledge about living
organisms, including humans, with an enhanced understanding of Earth's
systems. This will require development of more sophisticated conceptual
and computational models for use in understanding complex systems, which
often span temporal and spatial scales and can exhibit unexpected
behavior. Careful attention to the interplay among components as well as
emergent system properties is critical to obtaining the level of
credible predictive information on which management and regulatory
decisions can be made. The study of biocomplexity will be a central
element of the environmental portfolio, as it is critical to advancing
multiple fields of research that focus on environmental challenges.

As NSF and other organizations move into a new era that calls for
greater contributions to national and global well-being and more
efficient use of resources, the potential for NSF to make more effective
use of partnerships is extraordinary. NSF presently cooperates with
other Federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector
firms, organizations and foundations, non-governmental organizations,
and scholarly associations. Outside the United States, NSF works with
counterpart agencies of foreign governments, intergovernmental
organizations such as the United Nations, and non-governmental
organizations such as the International Council of Scientific Unions
(ICSU).

The NSTC Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) provides
a mechanism to facilitate and foster interagency research (see Appendix
D). The CENR has highlighted the importance of coordinating research
that has relevance to national initiatives and priorities, environmental
statutes, and regional and global agreements and conventions. Areas for
improvement for such research have also been recognized by the CENR,
including the need to strengthen extramural academic research programs,
encourage external peer-review of all research and development programs
and invest in future human-resource and technical research capabilities.

Building on the success of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) in developing a successful interagency program, the NSTC is
overseeing similar efforts in several other areas. Two of these are the
*Federal Geographic Data Committee*, which is developing common
standards for geographically-based research and observation, and
*Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges*, which features
multidisciplinary approaches to such problems as invasive species and
harmful algal blooms. In addition, the NSF has developed a wide range of
bi- and multi-lateral interagency environmental activities that are not
specifically part of the larger NSTC efforts (see Appendix D). NSF has
also assisted other agencies in developing NSF-style peer review systems
for these competitions.

The necessity to understand our global environment, its natural
variability, and the changes imposed on it through human activities is
recognized internationally. Environmental processes occur over a wide
range of spatial scales. Some environmental problems are local (i.e.,
waste disposal), some are regional (e.g., loss of migratory species due
to habitat destruction in one seasonal habitat), and some are global
(e.g., stratospheric ozone depletion). Therefore, certain environmental
research and scientific assessment efforts require international
collaboration and cooperation.

## 

## Education 

As part of its mission to promote the progress of science and
engineering, NSF supports individuals and groups working to ensure a
scientifically-literate populace as well as a well-trained cadre of
scientists and engineers to study present and future environmental
issues. Some of these activities take place in the context of projects
aimed at advancing the frontiers of knowledge, others take the form of
projects dedicated to education and human resource development.

Many − if not most − NSF-supported environmental research projects
support graduate students and/or postdoctoral fellows. Many also support
undergraduates via NSF's Research Experiences for Undergraduates
program[^9]. In addition, a growing number of primarily research
activities are adding integrated education components. For example:

-   The Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has begun a
    broad-scale, long-term effort to combine scientific research and
    science education. Projects include using LTER resources to enhance
    hands-on science learning for students; developing long-term
    research sites on or near school yards; and structuring
    communication between scientists, science educators, and school
    teachers.

-   The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
    has established a partnership with a locally-developed science
    curriculum called Los Marineros. The partnership forms the basis of
    the sciences curriculum for all 5^th^ grade students in Santa
    Barbara, CA. Scientist volunteers from NCEAS adopt a 5^th^ grade
    class and develop an ecology experiment that the class conducts
    during the school year.

-   The Environmental Molecular Science Institutes were recently
    established through an NSF Division of Chemistry and U.S. DOE
    competition to provide for collaborative research on the molecular
    behavior of complex, dynamic environmental systems[^10]. In addition
    to the other review criteria, proposals were evaluated based on the
    quality of the education and training components, especially plans
    to involve students and under-represented groups.

-   All Water and Watersheds proposals now must include plans for
    meaningful integration of research with education and outreach. The
    Principal Investigator\'s (PIs) are encouraged to include
    involvement of local school groups in field sampling, lab analyses,
    or other project activities.

In addition to education accomplished through research project support,
approximately \$29 million was spent in FY 1998 on environment-related
projects funded by the Directorate for Education and Human Resources
(EHR). Consistent with a growing public awareness of environmental
issues, more environmental courses and placement exams at the secondary
school level, and a growing demand for undergraduate environmental
science degrees, EHR has been receiving an increasing number of
education proposals related to the environment. These trends have also
fueled an increase in the number of teachers seeking professional
development in the field.

The Directorate for Education and Human Resources provides support for
science and mathematics education across all levels of formal education
as well as through informal mechanisms. Funds are not targeted at
specific topical areas, such as the environment; however, a significant
number of environment-related projects are funded via the standard
proposal process. Types of activities related to the environment
include:

-   Teacher preparation and professional development projects for
    teachers.

-   Development and dissemination of educational materials and
    experiences such as textbooks, CD-ROM interactive programs,
    classroom science kits, laboratory and field equipment, web-based
    curricula, video lessons and exercises.

-   Informal education projects such as museum exhibits, video
    documentaries, radio programs; large-format films, and television
    series.

Joint funding of education projects across directorates has been
increasing. For example, EHR also collaborates with the Directorate for
Geosciences in funding the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit
the Environment (GLOBE) program. GLOBE is a worldwide network of
students, teachers, and scientists from over 6,000 schools working
together to study and understand the global environment. GLOBE students
make environmental observations at or near their schools and report
their data through the Internet[^11]. Scientists use GLOBE data in their
research and provide feedback to the students to enrich their science
education. GLOBE calls for proposals are released about every four years
and NSF invests \~\$2M per year on the awards.

## Scientific Assessment

Scientific assessment is viewed by the Board as a critical element of
the effective integration and communication of scientific research
findings. Results of individual and team research efforts do not usually
provide the synthesis and integration necessary to set research
priorities or to provide guidance for environmental policy or management
decisions. Scientific assessment is particularly desirable when there
exist complex data sets and results from multiple research sites,
disparate time intervals, or varying environmental conditions.
Scientific analysis, synthesis and modeling provide rational mechanisms
for integrating and evaluating results or for defining the most
productive research avenues to pursue.

For the purposes of this report, scientific assessment is defined as
inquiry-based analysis of relevant biological, socioeconomic, and
physical environmental scientific information to provide an informed
basis for 1) prioritizing scientific investments and 2) societal action.

Because the purpose of scientific assessment is the integration and
communication of research results, the form of communication must be
appropriate for and responsive to the intended audiences. The
traditional audience for the vast majority of scientific research has
been the scientific community, with publication in scientific journals
the vehicle. Environmental topics can also employ alternate avenues of
communication of peer-reviewed scientific findings to a broader array of
audiences, both public and private sectors.

NSF currently funds a small number of assessment activities. Some of
these focus on the science of assessments, i.e., they provide grants to
analyze the process of conducting effective assessments. Other
activities involve grants to groups of recognized experts with the goal
of synthesizing information and reporting it in a credible and useful
fashion. NSF enables scientific assessments in the same way that it
enables scientific and engineering research: by providing funding for
the highest-quality work as judged by merit review. Three recent or
current assessment activities funded by the Foundation are briefly
described below.

1.  The NSF is one of the interagency partners charged by the Global
    Change Research Act of 1990 to conduct a national assessment. The
    overall goal of the assessment is to analyze and evaluate what is
    known about the potential consequences of global change for the U.S.
    The current assessment focuses on the consequences of climate
    variability and change and is timed to provide input to the Third
    Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    (IPCC). NSF has contributed to the regional, sectoral, and national
    assessment activities coordinated by the US Global Change Research
    Program (USGCRP).

2.  In 1997, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
    and the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) initiated a
    one-year project that organized a nation-wide graduate seminar, to
    examine the role of science in Habitat Conservation Plans[^12]
    (HCPs). Private landowners are legally required to provide HCPs that
    outline how they intend to minimize the impact of planned activities
    on the destruction of endangered species and habitats. The seminar
    involved 106 graduate students and 13 faculty advisors at 8
    universities. The 90,000-entry peer-reviewed HCP database was used
    by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in revising their HCP
    Handbook.

3.  NSF supports a competition entitled Methods and Models for
    Integrated Assessment (MMIA). The goal of the MMIA competition is to
    support fundamental and methodological research that advances the
    development of methodologies and models that will integrate or
    couple multiple component systems. MMIA is part of the USGCRP.

The majority of the innovative science and engineering research funded
by NSF is by its nature anticipatory. Pioneering research often
identifies environmental problems that later−in the short- or
long-term−become established as specific research areas (e.g., CO2
increase, ozone hole, acid rain, species extinction rates, exotic
species invasions). The ability to anticipate future environmental
problems can help prevent them from happening or keep them from becoming
prohibitively expensive and recalcitrant to address. The NSF has just
begun to tap opportunities for coupling its support of anticipatory
research to scientific assessment activities in useful ways. The
Foundation estimates that approximately \$4M is spent annually on
scientific assessment projects.

# IV. Input Received from External Sources about Unmet Needs and Opportunities 

The Board received and considered hundreds of recommendations from
reports and policy documents; from scholars in every scientific
discipline and a number of professional societies; from community
groups, local and Federal agency officials; and from non-governmental
organizations and concerned citizens (see Appendix C). Many of the
suggestions transcend NSF's mission and relate more properly to the
entire Federal portfolio of environmental activities. Nonetheless, we
include them as a record of those points made repeatedly and as a basis
for the findings and recommendations appearing later in the report. In
addition, the Board examined a variety of programs at NSF to determine
the factors most likely to result in effective research, education and
scientific assessment activities.

A number of themes emerged from this diverse input. Foremost among them
was a strong endorsement of the fundamental operating principles of NSF.
In particular, the following strengths were highlighted:

-   The NSF\'s merit review approach is considered key to the
    credibility of its environment portfolio.

-   The ability of core NSF programs to evolve over time as different
    fields of study change is widely supported.

-   NSF gets positive marks for its support for education, and the
    integration of education with research.

-   One of NSF\'s major strengths is its ability to activate the
    intellectual assets of the research and education communities and
    mobilize resources for addressing substantive scientific and
    engineering challenges.

-   The ability of program officers to allocate funds to facilitate the
    early development of emerging fields is both beneficial to nascent
    disciplines and an excellent mechanism to attract outstanding
    scientists to serve in the critical role of program officers.

These strengths place the Foundation in a unique position to enable a
broad spectrum of advances in the research community and to bring other
Federal agencies into productive partnerships in support of
environmental research.

At the same time, the Board heard many ideas that framed ways in which
NSF could and should develop its environmental portfolio. Repeated
suggestions included:

-   The need for significantly more cross-disciplinary/interdisciplinary
    research to address environmental issues and problems.

    This recommendation has been repeated frequently over a number of
    years as researchers have grappled with the extraordinary complexity
    of environmental systems and the factors influencing those systems.
    Expertise from multiple disciplines − including physical, biological
    and social sciences and engineering − is required to advance
    understanding and solve environmental problems. Many of the
    individuals who spoke to the Board in its public events or via its
    web site emphasized this as an area that NSF needs to emphasize, and
    a sizeable fraction of the \~200 reports on the Board web site
    discuss this issue. The Corson Report (NRC 1993) states that "the
    research establishment is poorly structured to deal with complex,
    interdisciplinary research on large spatial scales and long-term
    temporal scales." Many also emphasized the inherent difficulties in
    establishing interdisciplinary projects within the context of
    disciplinary programs. This is clearly an area where progress is
    needed.

-   The necessity of recognizing the inherent complexity and
    non-linearity of most environmental systems.

    Numerous individuals suggested that NSF's new focus on biocomplexity
    is timely and urgently needed, but that a far greater effort is
    required. They emphasized the importance of recognizing the inherent
    differences between reductionist approaches (which focus on smaller
    and smaller units of a process or system) and more synthetic
    approaches (which emphasize interactions among components, complex
    behaviors, and emergent properties) required to understand
    environmental systems. (Box 4)

-   The importance of considering questions at the appropriate temporal
    and physical scale, namely long-term and large-scale research needs.

    The Board heard from a variety of sources that the needs for
    long-term research, monitoring, and assessment of environmental
    trends far exceed what is being currently delivered. A whole new
    level of effort is needed to complement the excellent examples of
    long-term, large-spatial-scale research that presently exist (e.g.,
    certain Global Change Research endeavors; the Long-Term Ecological
    Research program).

    The vast majority of field studies are of insufficient duration or
    spatial scale, or both, to capture important phenomena. For example,
    in a survey of the duration of research projects published in the
    journal Ecology between 1977-1987, Tilman (1989) found that 40% of
    those studies had time periods of less than one year and that more
    than 92% of experimental field studies had durations of five years
    or fewer. Given that many organisms require more than a few years to
    complete their life span and that most ecological processes require
    a long period to exhibit their potential range, an emphasis on
    shorter-term projects can substantially constrain the development of
    environmental understanding. Similarly, the spatial scale of most
    research projects does not approach the scale of the whole
    cybernetic system.

-   The need to include appropriate human components (i.e., economics
    and social sciences) in environmental research and education
    activities.

    The Board noted that over the last decade or so an increasing number
    of environment-related reports highlight the fact that we are poised
    to make large advances in understanding as the paradigm expands to
    include human sciences in our understanding of environmental
    systems. The trajectory of scholarship in this area is
    simultaneously shifting focus and expanding rapidly. Needs include:
    theoretical and empirical research to develop measures of
    sustainable consumption levels; quantitative studies on the
    efficient use of resources; research on the relationships between
    environmental regulations, private sector investment decisions, and
    productivity growth; and research on participatory processes,
    scientific and technological innovation, and resource management.

    Research on environmental valuing and decision making, in this
    country and elsewhere, indicates that human beings and communities
    use a complex calculus that weighs concerns for social justice,
    aesthetics, history and economic factors in assessing the merits of
    policy and practice. Further research is needed to identify the
    kinds of participatory processes and educational approaches that
    enhance human ability to make good use of scientific information in
    developing, evaluating, and implementing stable, sustainable
    environmental policies, frequently in the face of substantial
    scientific uncertainty.

-   The need for more effective information infrastructure to enable
    significant advances in informatics, data management, modeling,
    synthesis and dissemination of information.

    As information capabilities have grown, there is a greater
    realization of the potential for advancing our understanding of
    environmental questions. The Board heard and read many compelling
    examples of how these advancing capabilities have fundamentally
    changed research endeavors. The Board also was told that the
    information wave is far from cresting. For example, W. Franklin
    Harris (University of Tennessee) stated "Today we speak easily of
    collaborations between molecular biosciences and ecology. What we
    quickly forget is the sometimes-long period of incubation before
    such collaborations take hold and lead environmental science in new
    directions. To realize the Nation's environmental research agenda,
    we need to understand the process of scientific collaboration
    better. Perhaps the vehicle here is information. Therefore, the
    Board could well explore how we bring information technology more
    fully to the environmental research agenda."

-   The urgency of developing and exploiting state of the art technology
    to advance environmental studies and address environmental problems.

    New computational algorithms, remote sensing, new kinds of sensors,
    genome sequencing, laser technologies and other advanced approaches
    are moving environmental research into a new era. The capabilities
    that these new technologies enable are not far from the science
    fiction of past decades. The Board heard that previously
    inconceivable advances are being suggested. One scientist testified
    that genomic bar-coding of the pathogen *Pfiesteria* in the
    Chesapeake Bay may become a reality thanks to microchips that will
    identify the organism\'s genome as fast as a supermarket scanner.

    The other emerging new side of environmental technology is
    industrial ecology, a field that takes a systems view of the use and
    environmental implications of materials, energy, and products in
    industrial societies. It exploits the ecological analogy by placing
    industrial activity in its environmental context and by drawing on
    nature as a model. The Board heard and read that certain
    environmental problems are intimately linked to global population
    growth, material aspirations, and the organization and performance
    of the economy. The rich research agenda for industrial ecology has
    grown from more traditional research on particular materials and
    economic sectors and now includes needs for cross-sector and
    multi-scale approaches. For example, studies of dematerialization
    (materials intensity per unit of GDP) are needed to understand the
    roles of materials substitutions, new designs, shifts toward
    services in economies, and movement of materials-intensive
    production to the developing world. The Board also heard that
    fundamental research is needed to enable the shift from waste
    management and remediation to avoidance of environmental harm. For
    example, fundamental studies in chemistry and engineering have led
    to environmentally benign alternatives to chlorinated hydrocarbons
    for use in synthesis of chemicals and pharmaceuticals and in
    manufacturing processes. Industries have been quick to adopt new
    products such as these, as well as new approaches to polymer
    production, dry cleaning, and paint application.

-   The importance of inventory and monitoring programs to characterize
    animal and plant resources and determine their status and trends.

    Plant, animal and microbial species provide the basis for
    economically productive enterprises, including crop and timber
    agriculture, livestock husbandry, fishing, and consumptive and
    non-consumptive wildlife recreation. Protecting the basis of these
    endeavors calls for a more extensive understanding of the wild
    relatives of these species (rich sources of new genes) and of
    threats from invasive species including pests and pathogens. In
    addition, studies of genetic diversity and the rich array of
    chemicals and structures found in plants, animals and microbes
    contribute directly to many facets of the biotechnology industry and
    biomedical research. The need for evaluation of patterns and causes
    of change goes beyond the need for information on individual
    species. Assessing the status and trends of ecosystems providing
    essential services is increasingly recognized as vital to economic
    and health interests. Ecosystem services of particular interest
    include pollination, pest control, water purification and flood
    control (PCAST 1998).

-   The need for research to connect more effectively to decision making
    (policy, regulatory, management, institutional and individual).

    Over the last decade, a great deal of interest has been expressed in
    improving the scientific basis for making decisions on environmental
    issues. Several recommendations the Board heard and read on this
    topic have relevance to this report: (1) research results should be
    communicated to potential users in a useful and understandable
    form; (2) research should include a focus on those environmental
    problems where users need better information; and (3) public
    understanding of science and of complexity, in particular in the
    environmental area, needs to be improved.

    The Board heard that there is a need for knowledge assessments to
    provide a common base of understanding. A model for such knowledge
    assessments might be the Issues in Ecology series produced by the
    Ecological Society of America. This peer-reviewed publication
    reports, in lay language, the consensus of a panel of scientific
    experts on issues relevant to the environment.

    The NRC Corson Report[^13], the Committee for the National Institute
    for the Environment[^14] (CNIE), the American Institute of
    Biological Sciences (AIBS), and the Ecological Society of America
    (ESA), among others, suggested specific ways to improve the use and
    usefulness of the knowledge resulting from the research enterprise.
    Suggestions include: improved coordination across the environmental
    research portfolio; setting of priorities to produce a more
    comprehensive knowledge base; better mechanisms for the
    communication of urgent societal needs to the research community;
    better communication of research results to multiple audiences;
    improved mechanisms for organization, management and distribution of
    data; and improved public understanding of science and environmental
    issues.

    The Ehlers' Report of the U.S. House of Representatives Science
    Committee emphasizes that the role for science in helping society
    make good decisions will take on increasing importance, particularly
    as we face difficult decisions related to the environment[^15].

-   The urgency of including educational elements in environmental
    programs and plans.

    Many who communicated with the Board highlighted the need for
    environmental education and validated the NSF's current strategic
    plan, which calls for increased integration of education with
    research. The Board heard that education and training in the
    Nation's universities are strongly disciplinary, whereas solution of
    environmental problems also requires broadly trained people and
    multidisciplinary approaches. Opportunities for broadly based
    interdisciplinary graduate degrees are few, and faculty are not
    rewarded as suitably for interdisciplinary activities as they are
    for disciplinary activities. The views expressed included the
    concern that environmental scientists are often not appropriately
    trained to address pressing needs and fill positions in career paths
    outside of academe.

-   The importance of improved coordination among programs and agencies.

    The need for good communication and coordination across agencies was
    highlighted as an ongoing challenge. The Committee on Environment
    and Natural Resources of the National Science and Technology Council
    provides a mechanism for this coordination.

-   The need to improve predictive capabilities in a variety of
    environmental areas.

    The Board heard testimony that the ability to predict the behavior
    of environmental systems has grown steadily with the increase in
    understanding of many of these complex systems. Most scientific
    inquiry focuses on components of the environment or the individual
    effects of one component on others. Simulation and other models
    provide a framework within which to place our conjoint understanding
    of all the components simultaneously- as they occur in nature. This
    framework allows quantitative accounting of the interaction of the
    component parts with factors outside the system and the sometimes
    surprising responses resulting from feedback among interacting
    components. Comparison of model output with data from environmental
    experiments indicates how much confidence can be placed in the
    models. Models tested successfully in a variety of environments
    permit more robust predictions about the complex behavior of the
    environment. Modeling experiments can be conducted to help design
    research in unexplored areas or sets of environmental drivers can be
    used that represent management or impact scenarios of particular
    interest to scientists or society. In fact, simulation models have
    become tools of necessity for environmental research.

-   The importance of obtaining input on priority setting from
    individuals and organizations familiar with research, education and
    assessment issues.

    The Board heard and read that across science and engineering there
    are clear needs for priority setting. The Board examined several
    examples where research or education agendas were defined in an
    inclusive and integrated manner. It became clear that this is an
    area that needs much more attention, in particular where priorities
    are set in interdisciplinary areas.

It was clear throughout the public-input process that citizens, many
governmental officials, other Federal agencies, professional scientific
and engineering societies, and individual scientists look to the NSF for
leadership in environmental research, education and scientific
assessment. The expectation that NSF will play a key role was
highlighted for the Board in a number of ways and by groups ranging from
National Research Council (NRC) committees to advocacy groups. The
strong message running throughout the hearings was that NSF is poised
and is expected to respond vigorously to the new challenges of providing
and communicating the fundamental knowledge base and educating and
training the workforce to meet the environmental challenges of the next
century. A parallel message underscored the requirement for significant
new resources to accomplish these goals.

# V. Findings and Recommendations

## General Findings and Recommendations

Three interrelated conclusions provide a compelling rationale for making
the environmental portfolio a central activity of the Foundation: 1)
environmental issues are significant to national health, prosperity,
equity and well being; 2) environmental research, education, and
scientific assessment are essential to environmental problem-solving;
and 3) within the family of Federal agencies, NSF is positioned to play
a leadership role in providing and communicating the fundamental
knowledge base on environmental topics. In order to be effective in this
role, NSF activities must complement and enhance, not duplicate or
replace, the extant portfolio of Federal activities in this area.

Environmental science and engineering has matured significantly over the
last decade. New knowledge and new technologies have combined to bring
the environmental sciences to an unprecedented threshold of discovery,
understanding, and useful information. The NSF is supporting
significantly more environmental research and education than is
generally appreciated. Despite the current set of activities in the
environmental arena, the Nation's need for fundamental environmental
knowledge and understanding requires further attention. To expand and
strengthen the Foundation's environmental portfolio, two key issues must
be addressed. Environmental activities within NSF must 1) be organized
more effectively and 2) receive greater funding.

The growing frustration with the lack of adequate scientific information
about environmental issues has led to a plethora of reports and
suggestions. The majority of these focus on enhancing the disciplinary
and interdisciplinary fundamental understanding of environmental systems
and problems, improving the systematic acquisition of data, the analysis
and synthesis of these data into useful information, and the
dissemination of this information into understandable formats for
multiple uses. Suggestions for Federal organizational changes have
included the creation of a new Federal agency, an environmental
institute outside NSF, a strengthened interagency environmental
committee that would involve NSF, an environmental institute within NSF,
and a new directorate inside NSF. The Board finds that many of these
suggestions have been productive in promoting dialogue and raising
visibility of the issues.

The Board considered these multiple suggestions in light of its
immediate focus on environmental research, education and scientific
assessment within NSF. The suggestions of a new institute or directorate
within NSF, for example, were deemed less desirable than a new mechanism
which would simultaneously retain and strengthen existing disciplinary
units but at the same time provide more effective integration,
cooperation, visibility, and continuity across the Foundation.

Based on these reports and the broad input received by the Task Force,
the Board identified the following characteristics as necessary for an
effective organizational structure. The environmental portfolio of the
NSF should be well-integrated, high priority, highly visible, cohesive
and sustained. It must work effectively with and enhance the current
disciplinary structure and simultaneously provide more and more
effective interdisciplinary efforts. Moreover, NSF's activities should
continue to complement and enhance those of other Federal agencies.
These findings lead the Board to make two overarching recommendations.

### Keystone Recommendations

[**Resources and Funding (Recommendation 1**)]{.underline}:
Environmental research, education and scientific assessment should be
one of the highest priorities of the National Science Foundation. The
current environmental portfolio, an investment of approximately \$600
million, represents only about one-third of the resources necessary. In
view of the overwhelming importance and exciting opportunities for
progress in the environmental arena, and because existing resources are
fully and appropriately utilized, new resources will be required.
Therefore, we recommend that environmental research, education and
scientific assessment at NSF be increased by an additional \$1 billion
over the next 5 years.

**[Organizational Approach (Recommendation 2)]{.underline}:** NSF
management should develop an effective organizational approach that
meets all of the criteria required to ensure a well-integrated, high
priority, high visibility, cohesive, and sustained environmental
portfolio within the NSF. These criteria include:

-   A high-visibility, NSF-wide organizational focal point with:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Principal responsibility for identifying gaps, opportunities and
    priorities, particularly in interdisciplinary areas;

-   Budgetary authority for enabling integration across research,
    education, and scientific assessment, and across areas of inquiry;

-   Responsibility for assembling and publicizing, within the context of
    the Foundation's normal reporting, a clear statement of NSF's
    environmental activities;

-   A formal advisory process specifically for environmental activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Continuity of funding opportunities, in particular in
    interdisciplinary areas.

-   Integration, cooperation and collaboration with and across
    established programmatic areas, within NSF and between NSF and its
    sister Federal agencies.

## Specific Findings and Recommendations

The above two overarching recommendations are complemented by ten more
specific findings and recommendations. These are organized into three
basic activity categories (research, education, and scientific
assessment) and four crosscutting categories (physical, infrastructure,
technological infrastructure, information infrastructure, and
partnerships).

### Research

The role of the research component of NSF's environmental portfolio is
to foster discovery, across the fields of science and engineering, that
seeks to elucidate environmental processes and interactions, thereby
providing an integrated understanding of the natural status of and the
anthropogenic influences on the Earth's environmental envelope.

The fundamental understanding of environmental pattern and process
requires analysis in balance with synthesis to provide a foundation of
knowledge upon which paradigm development and predictive modeling can be
based. As the field of environmental research has matured
intellectually, its requirements for knowledge across all scientific,
engineering and mathematics disciplines have increased. The Board finds
that meeting this challenge will require increasing disciplinary
research efforts across all environmental fields.

Information and understanding from certain disciplines are especially
relevant to environmental problems, but are often lacking. The Board
finds that lack of knowledge from biological/ecological and social
sciences and environmental technology is limiting. Specific research
areas needing enhancement in the NSF environment portfolio include
Ecosystem Services, Integrated Environmental Systems, Biosphere and
Society, and Strategic Environmental Technologies (see Table 1). These
specific areas were identified repeatedly in the Task Forces' inquiry,
but do not represent a comprehensive list of all high priority unmet
research needs. Rather, they illustrate examples of exciting, emerging
areas ripe for advance and immediately relevant to environmental needs.

Most environmental issues are interdisciplinary, and their drivers,
indicators and effects propagate across extended spatial and temporal
scales. Increased resources are needed for interdisciplinary, long-term,
large-scale, problem-based research and monitoring efforts. In addition,
special mechanisms may be required to facilitate successful
interdisciplinary programs. The current mechanism of establishing
special competitions to address interdisciplinary needs is useful to
initiate programs, but does not address the need to provide long-term
stability of interdisciplinary efforts.

The Board acknowledges that the time scales of environmental phenomena
are much longer than funding cycles and program durations. Long-term
data bases, observations, and experiments are necessary to provide
understanding of many environmental problems, yet insufficient support
exists for sustained research efforts.

**[Disciplinary Research (Recommendation 3)]{.underline}**:
Environmental research within all relevant disciplines should be
enhanced, with significant new investments in research critical to
understanding biocomplexity, including the biological/ecological and
social sciences and environmental technology.

**[Interdisciplinary Research (Recommendation 4):]{.underline}**
Interdisciplinary research requires significantly greater investment,
more effective support mechanisms, and strengthened capabilities for
identifying research needs, prioritizing across disciplines, and
providing for their long-term support.

**[Long-Term Research (Recommendation 5):]{.underline}** The Foundation
should significantly increase its investments in existing long-term
programs and establish new support mechanisms for long-term research.

### Education

The Board finds that the role of the NSF is to create educational and
training opportunities that enhance scientific and technological
capacity associated with the environment, across both the formal and
informal educational enterprise.

Environmental education and training should be science based, but should
be given a renewed focus on preparing students for broad career horizons
and should integrate new technologies, especially information
technologies, as much as possible. There is a need to encourage changes
in the formal educational system to help all students, educators, and
education administrators learn about the environment, the economy, and
social equity as they relate to all academic disciplines and their daily
lives.

While the Board recognizes that there are significant needs for
schooling activities, there are also opportunities for enhancing the
public's ability to deal with complex information in the environmental
area. These include more informal educational channels such as science
centers, aquariums and similar facilities, television and radio
programs, web sites and other learning foci that are attractive to the
public. There is a need to encourage access to information on, and
opportunities to learn and make informed decisions about, the
environment as it relates to citizens' personal, work, and community
lives.

The twin goals of learning are to gain knowledge and to acquire skills
such as problem solving, consensus building, information management,
communication, and critical and creative thinking. The Board finds that
environmental issues offer excellent vehicles for developing and
exercising many of these skills using a systems approach.

**[Environmental Education (Recommendation 6):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should enhance its formal educational efforts by encouraging
submission of proposals that capitalize on the inherent student interest
in environmental areas while supporting significantly more environmental
educational efforts through informal vehicles. All Foundation-supported
education activities should at their core recognize potential and
develop the capacity for excellence in all segments of society, whether
or not they have been part of the scientific and engineering traditions.

Table 1. Programmatic gaps or areas needing enhancement in the NSF
environment portfolio identified by the Board.

+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| #######            | ######## Description                            |
|  Programmatic Area |                                                 |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Ecosystem Services | -   The interface between ecology and           |
|                    |     economics, especially mechanisms for        |
|                    |     incorporating ecosystem services into       |
|                    |     market systems.                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Relationship between biological diversity,  |
|                    |     area occupied by ecosystem and the delivery |
|                    |     of critical services                        |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Biogeochemical cycles                       |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Discovery of unknown species, understanding |
|                    |     their relationships to known organisms, and |
|                    |     evaluation of their genetic and other       |
|                    |     potential for ecosystem functioning and     |
|                    |     services to humans (see Box 1).             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Integrated         | -   Carbon cycle connections: terrestrial --    |
| Environmental      |     atmospheric -- oceanic. Emphasis to improve |
| Systems            |     balance of knowledge among components.      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Coastal zone research and other interface   |
|                    |     areas: watersheds, coastal waters and       |
|                    |     estuaries, large rivers.                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Ecosystem experimentation and the systems   |
|                    |     theory/complexity theory interface.         |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Spatially-explicit studies of               |
|                    |     biogeochemistry, land cover and land use.   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Ecology of infectious disease.              |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Integration of systematic biology with      |
|                    |     molecular and evolutionary approaches to    |
|                    |     improve predictive understanding of         |
|                    |     invasive species, human disease, and other  |
|                    |     areas.                                      |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Climate and the hydrological cycle.         |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Biosphere and      | -   Valuation and decision making research on   |
| Society            |     risk, existence values, ethics, and         |
|                    |     intergenerational tradeoffs of well-being.  |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Historical ecology: e.g. tracing            |
|                    |     human-environment relations by integrating  |
|                    |     evidence from physical, biological, and     |
|                    |     social sciences and the humanities over     |
|                    |     space and time.                             |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Social ecology: e.g. studies of social,     |
|                    |     cultural and economic processes, societal   |
|                    |     institutions, and public policies, in       |
|                    |     relation to the environment and its spatial |
|                    |     context.                                    |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Research on the innovation process for      |
|                    |     environmentally benign materials, designs,  |
|                    |     and processes.                              |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Strategic          | -   Integration of classic environmental        |
| Environmental      |     technologies with new capabilities in       |
| Technologies       |     molecular biology, informatics, gene        |
|                    |     expression, robotics, observing             |
|                    |     capabilities and other enabling             |
|                    |     technologies.                               |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Industrial ecology: e.g. materials flow     |
|                    |     accounting; scale issues research including |
|                    |     the scale of human perturbations to natural |
|                    |     materials flows; studies of                 |
|                    |     urbanization/transportation and land use;   |
|                    |     and product/process life-cycle assessment   |
|                    |     research.                                   |
|                    |                                                 |
|                    | -   Energy and environmental implications of    |
|                    |     emerging 21^st^ century patterns: e.g.      |
|                    |     service economies, movement of certain      |
|                    |     production processes to lesser developed    |
|                    |     countries, and remanufacturing.             |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

### Scientific Assessment

The Board finds that the role of the NSF is to facilitate the
development of methods and models of scientific assessment and foster
the conduct of scientific analyses of environmental issues, both
domestically and internationally.

The Board defines scientific assessment, for the purposes of this
report, as inquiry-based analysis of relevant biological, socioeconomic
and physical environmental scientific information to provide an informed
basis for 1) prioritizing scientific investments and 2) addressing
environmental issues.

Research on how to do effective, credible and helpful scientific
assessments is timely. Approaches to scientific assessment need to be
refined, standardized, and made more transferable between environmental
issues. In addition, the Board finds that there is an identified need
for a credible, unbiased approach to defining the status and trends, or
trajectory, of environmental patterns and processes. Such assessments
are needed for setting scientific priorities and for summarizing
scientific information for decision-makers.

**[Scientific Assessments (Recommendation 7):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should significantly increase its research on the methods and
models that support the scientific assessment process. In addition, NSF
should, with due cognizance of the activities of other agencies, enable
an increased portfolio of scientific assessments for the purpose of
prioritizing research investments and for synthesizing scientific
knowledge in a fashion useful for policy and decision-making.

### Physical Infrastructure

The Board finds that an important role of the NSF is to facilitate the
development of facilities, instrumentation, and other infrastructure
that enables discovery, including the study of processes and
interactions that occur over long-time scales.

Environmental research depends heavily on effective physical
infrastructure. Environmental observatories, ranging from telescopes to
undersea platforms to LTER sites are complemented by high-speed
communications links, powerful computers, and well-constructed
databases. Another category of physical infrastructure is natural
history collections that provide a baseline against which to measure
environmental change and provide essential resources for biology and
biotechnology. Finally, centers−both traditional and "virtual"−are well
suited as vehicles for pulling together interdisciplinary teams that can
address problem-focused issues and complement the types of activities
that individual investigators perform.

The Board finds that the physical and virtual infrastructure required
for an effective environmental program should be enhanced. Some of this
enhancement can be done in partnership with other agencies, but some
require enhanced attention by NSF. In addition to traditional areas of
physical infrastructure, more attention is needed to informatics, web
accessibility of data sets, and maintenance of natural history specimens
(extracted genetic, living, and preserved) in order to ensure that
researchers and educators can leverage past and future investments.

**[Enabling Infrastructure (Recommendation 8):]{.underline}** High
priority should be given to enhancing infrastructure for environmental
observations and collections as well as new information networking
capacity. A suite of environmental research and education hubs should be
created, on the scale of present Science and Technology Centers and
Engineering Research Centers, that might include physical and/or virtual
centers, site-focused and/or problem-focused collaboratories, and
additional environmental information synthesis and forecasting centers.

### Technological Infrastructure

The Board finds that a critical role of role is to foster research that
seeks to develop innovative technologies and approaches that assist the
Nation in conserving its environmental assets and services.

The convergence of 21^st^ century science and technology with emerging
paradigms of ecological understanding provides an unprecedented
opportunity. Wholly new fields of inquiry and analysis that address
complex ecosystem processes and resource stewardship have emerged in
just the past few years. The Board finds that the thoughtfully planned
integration of these sciences offers great promise for accelerating
fundamental understanding of environmental principles and injecting
contemporary science and technology into the study and management of
ecological systems. Table 2 presents examples of technologies with
promise for environmental research.

The NSF can play an important role in facilitating innovation and
stimulating a shift from relatively small incremental advances to bold
technological transformation in response to environmental problems. The
NSF could facilitate an effort to identify technologies that represent
order-of-magnitude improvements over existing environmental
technologies, and−in communication with other Federal agencies, the
academic community and the private sector−define the scientific and
engineering research needed to underpin these technologies.

**[Environmental Technology (Recommendation 9)]{.underline}:** The
Foundation should vigorously support research on environmental
technologies, including those that can help both public and private
sectors avoid environmental harm and permit wise utilization of natural
resources.

**[Enabling Technologies (Recommendation 10)]{.underline}:** The
Foundation should enable and encourage the use of new and appropriate
technologies in environmental research and education.

Table 2. Examples of technologies with promise for environmental
research.

  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
  **Technology**      **Description**

  Genome sequencing   DNA chips and other new biotechnologies to increase
  and derivative      understanding of how biological processes are
  technologies        controlled by genetic limitations and environmental
                      variables; design principles borrowed from
                      biological systems to guide biocatalysis and
                      bioremediation.

  Networked           Data provided by robust sensors, autonomous
  Observational       ecological monitoring devices, biochemical tracers,
  Systems             and satellite-based imaging of landscapes and
                      bodies of water can be networked for
                      better-integrated and more accessible information.

  Smart Technology    New molecular design methods and smart technology
                      can lead to environmentally benign materials,
                      device miniaturization and advanced processing
                      methods.

  Software and        New software for computational analysis, modeling,
  Statistics          and simulation combined with new statistical
                      approaches can provide a better basis for
                      comparison of patterns emerging from data at
                      different levels of detail.
  ------------------- ---------------------------------------------------

### Information Infrastructure

The Board finds that the role of NSF, in partnership with other Federal
agencies, is to stimulate the development of mechanisms and
infrastructure to synthesize and aggregate scientific environmental
information and to make it more accessible to the public.

Lack of knowledge and poor communication of existing information
constrain both the progress of discovery and the processes of society.
As good stewardship of environmental systems becomes increasingly vital,
the need for ease of analysis and synthesis of information about them
will become ever more important. The Board finds that there is a clear
need for a coordinated electronic network linking distributed
information and databases at all levels, with attention to information
access and transfer to the public.

The state of environmental monitoring is itself imperfect; but even the
data that exist are not routinely checked for comparability and for
quality, nor are they made conveniently available for analysis in the
way in which labor statistics, for example, are handled by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. A central source of comparable, quality-controlled
time series of measurements of the environment is needed.

**[Environmental Information (Recommendation 11):]{.underline}** The
Foundation should take the lead in enabling a coordinated, digital,
environmental information network. In addition, the NSF should catalyze
a study to frame a central source that compiles comparable,
quality-controlled time series of measurements of the state of the
environment.

### Partnerships, Coordination and Collaborations

The Board finds that collaborations and partnerships are essential to
important and high-priority environmental research, education, and
scientific assessment efforts and are most effective when they are based
on intellectual needs: The collective results should be greater than
what could have been achieved independently. Partnerships, among federal
agencies, with non-governmental bodies (e.g., private sector entities,
NGO's, and others), and international organizations can provide the
intellectual and financial leveraging to address a) environmental
questions at the local level, b) larger-scale regional issues, and c)
problems for which the research and the policy dimensions are
international.

Many of NSF\'s international environmental research collaborations are
essential to address the fundamental scientific questions central to
many environmental issues (e.g., the role that equatorial ocean plays in
controlling the timing and magnitude of the El Nino) and reflect the
recognized urgency of developing an international scientific consensus
for consideration by policy makers (e.g., the scientific basis for the
depletion of stratospheric ozone and the international policies within
the Montreal Protocol). Just as research informs the policy dialog
within the U.S., so research in which national policy makers have
confidence undergirds international policy negotiations. By
collaborating with scientists from around the world---including those in
countries with limited means---NSF-funded projects help expand the
knowledge base necessary for scientific consensus.

Within the Federal agency family, many mission agencies conduct
research, education and assessment activities in the environmental
arena. There are thus many opportunities to partner in bilateral
agreements or via National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) science
and engineering initiatives. In addition to bridging common interests
and objectives, partnerships should provide for more effective
coordination of complementary expertise and experience, and broadening
of perspectives among participants. The Board endorses strong NSF
participation in the coordinating mechanism provided through NSTC.

The most effective partnerships involve the evolution of trust among
participants, strategic thinking processes to identify and evaluate
common interests and objectives, and relatively simple, flexible
administrative arrangements. They also require sufficient staff,
resources and time to mature.

**[Implementation Partnerships (Recommendation 12)]{.underline}**: The
NSF should actively seek and provide stable support for research,
education, and assessment partnerships that correspond to the location,
scale, and nature of the environmental issues. These partnerships and
interagency coordination should include both domestic and international
collaborations that foster joint implementation including joint
financing when appropriate. This report clearly establishes the need for
an expanded national portfolio of environmental R&D. Therefore, the
Board suggests that the NSTC, with advice from PCAST, reevaluate the
national environmental R&D portfolio, including identification of
research gaps and setting of priorities, and the respective roles of
different Federal agencies in fundamental environmental research and
education.

# VI. Conclusion

Scientific understanding of the environment, together with an informed,
scientifically literate citizenry, are requisite to quality of life for
generations to come. As the interdependencies of fundamental and applied
environmental research become more evident, the NSF should capitalize on
the momentum gained in its past support for premium scholarship and
emerging new research areas and technologies. The time is ripe to
accelerate progress.

This report provides guidance at the policy level for the NSF. The two
overarching and ten topical recommendations frame a timely agenda for
the Foundation's research, education and scientific assessment
activities. Fleshing out the specific new agendas will require intense
effort by NSF staff, close coordination and communication with sister
agencies and OSTP, and vigorous participation by the scientific
community. The Board eagerly awaits the construction of this new
portfolio.

# Appendix A - Charge: Task Force on the Environment

NSB-98-161

August 12, 1998

revised

CHARGE

COMMITTEE ON PROGRAMS AND PLANS

TASK FORCE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

On March 19, 1998, the National Science Board approved a resolution
(NSB-98-65) in which it noted the need for expanded environmental
research, education, and assessment. The resolution stated that NSF has
a legitimate role in these activities, and that this role can be
exercised most constructively in the context of a strategy coordinated
by the White House agencies and the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC).

The Task Force on the Environment is established to assist the
Foundation in defining the scope of its role with respect to
environmental research, education, and assessment, and in determining
the best means of implementing activities related to this area. The task
force will report to the Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) and will
consist of Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Chair, Dr. Mary K. Gaillard, Dr. Solow,
and Dr. Warren Washington, and will also include Dr. Mary Clutter,
Assistant Director for Biological Sciences and Dr. Robert Corell,
Assistant Director for Geosciences. Dr. John Hopcroft, NSB consultant,
will serve as consultant to the task force.

The Task Force will:

Review the scope of current NSF activities related to research,
education, and assessment on the environment;

Develop guidance for the National Science Foundation at the policy level
that will be used for designing an appropriate portfolio of activities,
consistent with the overall NSTC strategy, the goals of the NSF
Strategic Plan, and activities of other agencies and organizations that
support related programs; and

Complete a report, with final recommendations, to be submitted to the
Board no later than its May 5­7, 1999 meeting.

Eamon M. Kelly

Chairman

# Appendix B - Literature Listing Compiled and Considered by the Task Force 

*The literature list is intended to highlight the broad sweep of
environmental concerns considered by the Task Force. The number of
references on a particular issue should not be interpreted as a measure
of the priority for that issue.*

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        **Title**                **Date**   **Initiators / Sponsors**  **Publication**
  ----- ------------------------ ---------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1     Benefits of Biodiversity 1999       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
                                            Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  2     Bioinformatics in the    1999       A Report to the Research   Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
        21st Century                        Resources and              
                                            Infrastructure Working     
                                            Group of the National      
                                            Science and Technology     
                                            Council, Committee on      
                                            Science, Subcommittee on   
                                            Biotechnology              

  3     Evolution, Science, and  1999       A.P. Sloan Foundation and  Thomas R. Meagher, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey or contact
        Society: Evolutionary               the National Science       [http://www.amnat.org](http://www.amnat.org/)
        Biology and the National            Foundation                 
        Research Agenda                                                

  4     Nature\'s Numbers        1999       National Research Council, W.D. Nordhaus and E.C. Kokkelenberg (eds.) National Academy Press,
                                            Commission on Behavioral   Washington, D.C.
                                            and Social Sciences and    
                                            Education, Committee on    
                                            National Statistics, Panel 
                                            on Integrated              
                                            Environmental and Economic 
                                            Accounting                 

  5     Technology Forces at     1999       Sponsor: White House       Resetar, S., B. Lachman, R. Lempert & M. Pinto. RAND, Science and
        Work: Profiles of                   Office of Science and      Technology Policy Institute. #MR-1068-OSTP
        Environmental Research              Technology Policy.         <http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1068/>
        and Development at                  Prepared by RAND, Science  
        DuPont, Intel, Monsanto,            and Technology Policy      
        and Xerox                           Institute                  

  6     Towards a Sustainable    1999       President\'s Council on    PCSD, Washington, D.C.
        America. Advancing                  Sustainable Development    
        Prosperity, Opportunity                                        
        and a Healthy                                                  
        Environment for the 21st                                       
        Century                                                        

  7     Air Quality Research     1998       National Science &         NSTC, CENR, CENR Executive Secretariat 202-482-5916
        subcommittee Strategic              Technology Council;        
        Plan                                Committee on Environment   
                                            and Natural Resources      

  8     Basic Research Needs to  1998       Sponsors: NSF & DOE.       Conference & Workshops held October 22-24, 1998 in Tuscon, AZ
        Achieve Sustainability:             Conference organizers:     
        The Carbon Problem                  Peter Eisenberger,         
                                            Columbia Univ. & Michael   
                                            Knotek, U.S. DOE           

  9     Endocrine Disruptors:    1998       National Science &         NSTC, CENR, CENR Executive Secretariat 202-482-5916
        Research Needs and                  Technology Council;        
        Priorities                          Committee on Environment   
                                            and Natural Resources      

  10    Entering the Century of  1998                                  Lubchenco, J., 1998. Science 279:491
        the Environment: A New                                         
        Social Contract for                                            
        Science                                                        

  11    Federal Funds for        1998       National Science           NSF 97-335; Susan T. Hill, Project Officer
        Research and                        Foundation: Directorate    
        Development: FY 1996,               for Social, Behavioral,    
        1997 and 1998                       and Economic Sciences;     
                                            Division of Science        
                                            Resource Studies           

  12    Food Safety,             1998       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Sufficiency, and                    Science and Technology,    
        Security                            Ames, Iowa                 

  13    Foodborne Pathogens:     1998       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Review of                           Science and Technology,    
        Recommendations                     Ames, Iowa                 

  14    Future of Ocean          1998       NSF-sponsored workshop     <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/focus/>
        Chemistry in the U.S.               report                     
        (FOCUS)                                                        

  15    Future of Physical       1998       NSF-sponsored workshop     <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/apropos/>
        Oceanography (APROPOS)              report                     

  16    Global Ecology and       1998       Report from a Joint        <http://www.phys.ocean.dal.ca/~jhurst/SCOR/GEOHAB/GEOHAB.html>
        Oceanography of Harmful             IOC/SCOR Workshop held in  
        Algal Blooms (GEOHAB)               Havreholm, Denmark         

  17    Global Environmental     1998       National Research Council, National Academy Press
        Change: Research                    Policy Division, Board on  
        Pathways for the Next               Sustainable Development,   
        Decade                              Committee on Global Change 
                                            Research                   

  18    Global Ocean Observing   1998       UNESCO: Joint Scientific   IOC 1998, Paris, 168 pp. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. ISBN
        System (GOOS):                      and Technical Committee    0-904175-39-1
        Prospectus 1998                     for the Global Ocean       
                                            Observing System           

  19    Hydrologic Sciences:     1998       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 138 p.
        Taking Stock and Looking            Commission on Geosciences, 
        Ahead                               Environment, and           
                                            Resources, Water Science & 
                                            Technology Board           

  20    Is Coastal               1998       Environmental Science &    Pelly, J. ES&T 3(10):462-466
        Eutrophication out of               Technology 3:462-466       
        Control?                                                       

  21    Linking Industrial       1998       NSF-sponsored workshop     Andrews, C., D. Rejeski, R. Socolow & V. Thomas. RU/EJBS Working Paper 4.
        Ecology to Public                   report                     <http://policy.rutgers.edu/projects/ie.htm>
        Policy: Report of a                                            
        Workshop                                                       

  22    Major U.S. Oceanographic 1998       Marine Technology Society, Marine Technology Society Journal 32(3)
        Research Programs:                  Wayne B. Ingram,           
        Impacts, Legacies and               president.                 
        the Future                                                     

  23    Monitoring for Fine      1998       Sponsor: OSTP. Prepared by Eiseman, Elisa. CTI:RAND, Santa Monica, CA
        Particulate Matter                  RAND:CTI                   

  24    Ocean Ecology:           1998       NSF-sponsored workshop     <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/oeuvre/report/>
        Understanding and Vision            report                     
        for Research (OEUVRE)                                          

  25    Opportunities in Ocean   1998       National Research Council: National Academy Press. 1998. Washington, D.C.
        Sciences: Challenges on             Ocean Studies Board;       
        the Horizon                         Kenneth Brink, chair       

  26    Our Changing Planet: The 1998       National Science and       OSTP, Washington, DC, 130 p.
        FY 1999 U.S. Global                 Technology Council,        
        Change Research Program             Committee on Environment   
                                            and Natural Resources,     
                                            Subcommittee on Global     
                                            Change Research            

  27    Park Science:            1998       U.S. Dept of Interior,     USDOI; NPS: C-1 November 1998; ISSN 0735-9462.
        Integrating Research &              National Park Service      <http://www.nature.nps.gov/parksci/>
        Resource Management                                            

  28    Program Guide to         1998       National Science and       NSTC, CENR. U.S. GPO. CENR Executive Secretariat 202-482-5916
        Federally Funded                    Technology Council,        
        Environment and Natural             Committee on Environment   
        Resources R&D                       and Natural Resources      

  29    Protecting Our Planet    1998       Sponsors: United Nations   Robert Watson, et al.
        Securing Our Future:                Environment Programme;     
        Linkages Among Global               U.S. NASA; and The World   
        Environmental Issues and            Bank                       
        Human Needs                                                    

  30    Report of U.S. Southern  1998       U.S. Global Ocean          <http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/Research/globec/dcmeeting/dcrept.html>
        Ocean GLOBEC Planning               Ecosystems Dynamics;       
        Workshop                            Sponsored by NSF           

  31    Research Frontiers in    1998       Sponsors: NSF & Assoc. of  B.E. Logan, C.R. O\'Melia, & B.E. Rittman (eds). Assoc. of Environmental
        Environmental                       Envi. Engineering          Engineering Professors, Jan 1998, Monterey, CA
        Engineering                         Professors                 

  32    Russian-American         1998       Arctic Research Consortium <http://www.arcus.org/Publications/index.html>
        Initiative on Shelf-Land            of the U.S.                
        Environments in the                                            
        Arctic (RAISE) Program                                         
        Plan                                                           

  33    Successes, Limitations,  1998       Pace, M.L. and P.M.        Springer-Verlag, New York, 499 p.
        and Frontiers in                    Groffman, editors          
        Ecosystem Science                                              

  34    Teaming with Life:       1998       PCAST Panel on             86-p. report available from PCAST Secretariat 202-456-6100 or:
        Investing in Science to             Biodiversity and           <http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/OSTP_Home.html>
        Understand and Use                  Ecosystems; Report prep.   
        America\'s Living                   supported by: Gund         
        Capital                             Foundation, MacArthur      
                                            Foundation, IBM, Lucent    
                                            Tech., NSF, EPA & NASA     

  35    The Atmospheric          1998       National Research Council, John Dutton, Chair <http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064155/html/R1.html>
        Sciences: Entering the              Board on Atmospheric       
        Twenty-first Century                Sciences and Climate       

  36    The National Report Card 1998       National Environment       [www.neetf.org](http://www.neetf.org/)
        on Environmental                    Education & Training       
        Knowledge, Attitudes and            Foundation                 
        Behaviors: The Seventh                                         
        Annual Survey of Adult                                         
        Americans                                                      

  37    The OECD Megascience     1998       Organisation for Economic  Summary of workshop held on March 4-6, 1998 in Sweden.
        Forum: Workshop on                  Co-operation and           [www.oecd.org](http://www.oecd.org/)
        Global-scale Issues                 Development                

  38    The Regional Impacts of  1998       WMO & UNEP:                R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowere, R.H. Moss (eds). Cambridge University Press
        Climate Change: An                  Intergovernmental Panel on for IPCC
        Assessment of                       Climate Change             
        Vulnerability                                                  

  39    The TOGA Decade:         1998       American Geophysical       AGU, Washington, D.C. D.L.T. Anderson, E.S. Sarachik and P.J. Webster
        Reviewing the Progress              Union; Journal of          (eds).
        of El Nino Research and             Geophysical Research       
        Prediction                                                     

  40    Toward Prediction of the 1998       Arctic Research Consortium <http://www.arcus.org/Publications/index.html>
        Arctic System:                      of the U.S.                
        Predicting states of the                                       
        arctic system on                                               
        seasonal-to-century time                                       
        scales by integration                                          
        observations, process                                          
        research, modeling, and                                        
        assessment.                                                    

  41    Unlocking Our Future:    1998       A Report to Congress by    <http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm>
        Toward a New National               the House Committee on     
        Science Policy                      Science                    

  42    Unlocking our Future:    1998       U.S. House of              <http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm>
        Toward a New National               Representatives Committee  
        Science Policy                      on Science: Report to      
                                            Congress (\"Ehlers         
                                            Report\")                  

  43    Visions for Natural      1998       An Interim Report of the   Unpublished Report
        Resource Education and              Northwest Center for       
        Ecosystem Science for               Sustainable Resources;     
        the 21st Century                    Chemeketa Community        
                                            College, Salem, Oregon     

  44    Weaving a Web of Wealth: 1998       Australian Academy of      GPO Box 783, Canberra ACT 2601. ISBN 0 85847 2147
        Biological Informatics              Science                    
        for Industry, Science,                                         
        and Health                                                     

  45    Year of the Ocean:       1998       U.S. Federal Agencies with NOAA: Office of the Chief Scientist; W. S. Wilson (coordinator)
        discussion papers                   ocean-related programs     

  46    A Research Programme on  1997       ICSU: World Climate        World Climate Research Programme; WCRP No. 101, WMO/TD No. 853, ICPO No.10
        Climate Variability and             Research Programme;        
        Predictability for the              Hartmut Grassl, Director   
        21st Century (CLIVAR)                                          

  47    Arctic Pollution Issues: 1997       AMAP − Arctic Monitoring   <http://www.grida.no/amap/>
        A State of the Arctic               and Assessment Programme   
        Environment Report                                             

  48    Atmospheric Nitrogen     1997       Ecological Society of      <http://esa.sdsc.edu/sbindep1.htm>
        Deposition to Coastal               America, Sustainable       
        Wetlands                            Biosphere Initiative:      
                                            Workshop Report            

  49    Building a Foundation    1997       National Research Council  National Academy Press
        for Sound Environmental                                        
        Decisions                                                      

  50    Climate Change: State of 1997       Office of Science and      OSTP:Executive Office of the President. Washington, D.C.
        Knowledge                           Technology Policy          

  51    Climate, Ecology, and    1997       NOAA, NASA and NSF         Consequences 3(2). 1997. <http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/introCON.html>
        Human Health                        sponsorship; published in  
                                            Consequences. Author: Paul 
                                            R. Epstein                 

  52    Contribution of Animal   1997       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Products to Healthful               Science and Technology,    
        Diets                               Ames, Iowa                 

  53    Cooperative Ecosystem    1997       Cooperative Ecosystem      Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units Implementation Working Group, Gary
        Studies Units: Concept              Studies Units              Machlis (chair)
        Paper                               Implementation Working     
                                            Group, Gary Machlis        
                                            (chair)                    

  54    Critical Issues in K-12  1997       Report from a workshop     Unpublished Report
        Environmental Education             held July 11, 1997, hosted 
                                            by Morgan State            
                                            University/Environmental   
                                            Protection Agency Teacher  
                                            Institute                  

  55    East Central Europe: An  1997       Environmental Science &    Schnoor, J.L., J.N. Galloway & B. Moldan. ES&T 31(9):412-416
        Environment in                      Technology 31:412-416      
        Transition                                                     

  56    Environmentally          1997       National Research Council, Stern, P.C., T. Dietz, V.W. Ruttan, R.H. Socolow, and J.L. Sweeney (eds.)
        Significant                         Committee on the Human     National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
        Consumption - Research              Dimensions of Global       
        Directions                          Change                     

  57    Federal Energy Research  1997       President\'s Committee of  White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
        and Development for the             Advisors on Science and    
        Challenges of the 21st              Technology                 
        Century                                                        

  58    Federal Environmental    1997       Carnegie Commission on     Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology & Government, 25 p.
        Research and                        Science, Technology, and   
        Development: Status                 Government, memorandum,    
        Report with                         Task Force chair David Z.  
        Recommendations                     Robinson, memorandum       
                                            author: Dan Sarewitz       

  59    From Classroom to        1997       Report of the Public       <http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD>
        Community and Beyond:               Linkage, Dialogue, and     
        Educating for a                     Education Task Force of    
        Sustainable Future                  the President\'s Council   
                                            on Sustainable Development 

  60    Fuels Decarbonization    1997       sponsor: U.S. Dept. of     PU/CEES Report No. 302. <http://www.princeton.edu/~ceesdoe/>
        and Carbon                          Energy, report: Center for 
        Sequestration: Report of            Energy & Environmental     
        a Workshop                          Studies, Princeton         
                                            University; Robert Socolow 
                                            (ed.)                      

  61    Global Ocean Ecosystem   1997       IGBP Report 40; GLOBEC     IGBP; B.J. Rothschild, chair.
        Dynamics (GLOBEC)                   Report 9. International    
        Science Plan                        Council of Scientific      
                                            Unions; Scientific         
                                            Committee on Oceanic       
                                            Research. The              
                                            International              
                                            Geosphere-Biosphere        
                                            Programme                  

  62    Human Alteration of the  1997       Ecological Society of      Issues in Ecology, Number 1, Spring 1997. <http://www.sdsc.edu/~ESA/>
        Global Nitrogen Cycle:              America                    
        Causes and Consequences                                        

  63    Integrating the          1997       National Science &         NSTC: CENR. R. Watson & R. Huggett (chairs), M. Ruggiero & D. Scavia (team
        Nation\'s Environmental             Technology Council,        leaders)
        Monitoring and Research             Committee on Environment & 
        Networks and Programs: A            Natural Resources,         
        Proposed Framework                  Environmental Monitoring   
                                            Team                       

  64    Lessons from the         1997       Findings from Colloquium   <http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/tenthann/coll_e.htm>
        Montreal Protocol                                              

  65    Linking Sustainable      1997       Sponsor: OSTP. Prepared by RAND:CTI: Beth E. Lachman
        Community Activities to             RAND: CTI                  
        Pollution Prevention: A                                        
        Sourcebook                                                     

  66    Modeling the Arctic      1997       Arctic Research Consortium <http://www.arcus.org/Publications/index.html>
        System                              of the U.S.                

  67    Organizing for Research  1997       sponsors: NSF & DOE;       Eisenberger, P.M., A.R. Faust & M. Knotek, eds. Princeton Materials
        and Development in the              editors: P.M. Eisenberger, Institute, Princeton University. <http://pmi.princeton.edu/>
        21st Century                        A.R. Faust & M. Knotek     

  68    Our Changing Climate     1997       NOAA Reports to the        NOAA Office of Global Programs and UCAR/OIES
                                            Nation; UCAR via NOAA      
                                            Award no. NA57GP0576       

  69    People and the Arctic: A 1997       Arctic Research Consortium <http://www.arcus.org/Publications/index.html>
        Prospectus for Research             of the U.S.                
        on the Human Dimensions                                        
        of the Arctic System                                           

  70    Science & Engineering    1997       National Science           NSF 98-332; Ronald L. Meeks, Project Officer
        Degrees 1966-1995                   Foundation: Directorate    
                                            for Social, Behavioral,    
                                            and Economic Sciences;     
                                            Division of Science        
                                            Resource Studies           

  71    Science and Technology   1997       Executive Office of the    OSTP, Washington, DC. 141
        Shaping the Twenty-First            President, Office of       
        Century                             Science and Technology     
                                            Policy, report to the      
                                            Congress                   

  72    The Global Ocean         1997       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
        Observing System: Users,            Ocean Studies Board        
        Benefits, and Priorities                                       

  73    The Microbial World:     1997       American Academy of        Staley, JT, RW Castenholz, RR Colwell, JG Holt, MD Kane, NR Pace, AA
        Foundation of the                   Microbiology report        Salyers, & JM Tiedje. Colloquium report. American Society of Microbiology.
        Biosphere                           sponsored by NSF, NOAA,    32 p.
                                            DOE and Amer. Soc. for     
                                            Microbiology.              

  74    Valuing Ground Water -   1997       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
        Economic Concepts and               Commission on Geosciences, 
        Approaches                          Environment, and Water     
                                            (L.W. Canter, Chair)       

  75    A Geography of Hope:     1996       USDA Natural Resources     USDA Program Aid 1548. 1996. C. Cox and M. Schnepf, project managers.
        America\'s Private Land             Conservation Service       

  76    A Plan for a Research    1996       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC
        Program on Aerosol                  Board on Atmospheric       
        Radiative Forcing and               Sciences and Climate       
        Climate Change                                                 

  77    Common Future for        1996       NSF-sponsored workshop     <http://atlantic.evsc.virginia.edu/~bph/LTER_LMER/NSFreport.html>
        Long-Term Ecological                held Madison, WI, 1996.    
        Research, Land Margin                                          
        Ecosystem Research and                                         
        Joint Global Ocean Flux                                        
        Study                                                          

  78    DIVERSITAS: An           1996       Published by DIVERSITAS,   <http://www.icsu.org/DIVERSITAS/Plan/index.html>
        International Programme             Paris                      
        of Biodiversity Science.                                       
        Operational Plan                                               

  79    Ecological Resource      1996       Ecological Society of      <http://esa.sdsc.edu/sbi_bull8.htm>
        Monitoring: Change and              America, Sustainable       
        Trend Detection                     Biosphere Initiative:      
                                            Workshop Report            

  80    Ecologically Based Pest  1996       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 144 p.
        Management, New                     Board on Agriculture,      
        Solutions for a New                 Committee on Pest and      
        Century                             Pathogen Control through   
                                            Management of Biological   
                                            Control Agents and         
                                            Enhanced Cycles and        
                                            Natural Processes          

  81    Freshwater Ecosystems:   1996       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 364 p.
        Revitalizing Educational            Commission on Geosciences, 
        Programs in Limnology               Environment, and           
        \"Brezonik Report\"                 Resources, Water Science & 
                                            Technology Board,          
                                            Committee on Inland        
                                            Aquatic Ecosystems         

  82    Future of Marine Geology 1996       NSF-sponsored workshop     Baker, P. and M. McNutt (compilers).
        and Geophysics (FUMAGES)            report; Also sponsored by  <http://www.joss.ucar.edu/joss_psg/project/oce_workshop/fumages/>
                                            ONR Coastal Dynamics       
                                            Program                    

  83    Global Climate Change &  1996       Dutch & U.S. Govts.        Klabbers, J.H.G., C. Bernabo, B. Moomaw, T. Carter, S.P. Hammond & M.
        Sustainability:                                                Hisschemoller; Proceedings of the 27th Int. Conf. of the Int. Simulation &
        Enhancing the                                                  Gaming Association (Jurmala, Latvia, 7/96)
        Policy/Science Dialogue                                        

  84    Grazing on Public Lands  1996       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
                                            Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  85    Integrated Animal Waste  1996       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Management                          Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  86    Linking Science &        1996       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 530 p.
        Technology to Society\'s            Policy Division, Committee 
        Environmental Goals                 on the National Forum on   
        \"Ahearne - Stever                  S&T Goals: Environment     
        Report\"                                                       

  87    National Acid            1996       NAPAP Report to Congress   U.S. Government Printing Office
        Precipitation Assessment                                       
        Program (NAPAP)                                                

  88    Natural Disaster         1996       NSTC: CENR: Subcommittee   NSTC:CENR:SNDR; William Hooke, Chair
        Reduction: A Plan for               on Natural Disaster        
        the Nation                          Reduction                  

  89    NSF/DOE Nuclear Science  1996       NSF                        <http://pubweb.bnl.gov/~nsac/>
        Advisory Committee Long                                        
        Range Plan                                                     

  90    Oceans 2000: Bridging    1996       Consortium for             Interagency Partnership Initiative, CORE, 1755 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
        the Millenia:                       Oceanographic Research and Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036-2102, email: <core@brook.edu>
        Partnerships for                    Education (CORE): A report 
        Stakeholders in the                 on the Interagency         
        Oceans                              Partnership Initiative.    
                                            Sponsored: NSF, ORN, NASA, 
                                            ARPA and DOE               

  91    Sustainable America: A   1996       President\'s Council on    Buzzelli, D.T. and J. Lash (co-chairs). President\'s Council on Sustainable
        New Consensus for                   Sustainable Development    Development; U.S. GPO. ISBN 0-16-048529-0
        Prosperity, Opportunity,                                       
        and a Healthy                                                  
        Environment for the                                            
        Future                                                         

  92    The MATE Forum: Critical 1996       Report on a forum held     MATE Center, Monterey Peninsula College, 980 Fremont Street, Monterey, CA
        Issues in Marine                    November 8-10, 1996 in     93940, Ph (831) 645-1393 email: <info@marinetech.org>
        Advanced Technology                 Monterey, CA               
        Education                                                      

  93    U.S. GLOBEC Northeast    1996       U.S. Global Ocean          <http://cbl.umces.edu/fogarty/usglobec/reports/rep17/nepip.contents.html>
        Pacific Implementation              Ecosystems Dynamics;       
        Plan                                Sponsored by NSF           

  94    Upstream: Salmon and     1996       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Society in the Pacific              Board on Environmental     
        Northwest                           Science & Technology       

  95    Wetland and Aquatic      1996       European Commission;       EUR 17452. H.J. Laanbroek, E. Maltby, P. Whitehead, B. Faafeng, H Barth
        Ecosystem Research:                 Directorate General XII;   (eds.); report of an international workshop
        Science Plan                        Science, Research &        
                                            Development                

  96    When We Don\'t Know the  1996       Climatic Change 33:235-274 Lempert, R.J., M.E. Schlesinger & S.C. Bankes
        Costs or the Benefits:                                         
        Adaptive Strategies for                                        
        Abating Climate Change                                         

  97    Allocating Federal Funds 1995       National Academy of        National Academy Press, 97 p.
        for Science and                     Sciences, NAE, IOM, NRC,   
        Technology                          Committee on Criteria for  
                                            Federal Support of         
                                            Research and Development   

  98    Arctic Ocean Research    1995       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        and Supporting                      Ocean Studies Board        
        Facilities: National                                           
        Needs and Goals                                                

  99    Basic Research Needs for 1995       Sponsors: NSF, DOE,        Eisenberger, P.M.,ed. Princeton Materials Institute, Princeton University.
        Vehicles of the Future              Chrysler, Ford, GM;        <http://pmi.princeton.edu/>
                                            editor: Peter Eisenberger  

  100   Beyond the Horizon:      1995       U.S. EPA Science Advisory  EPA-SAB-EC-95-007. U.S. EPA. 1995
        Using Foresight to                  Board; Environmental       
        Protect the                         Futures Committee: Raymond 
        Environmental Future                C. Loehr, Chair.           

  101   Biotechnology for the    1995       National Science and       OSTP, Washington, DC. 89 p.
        21st Century: New                   Technology Council,        
        Horizons                            Committee on Fundamental   
                                            Science, Biotechnology     
                                            Research Subcommittee,     
                                            Lura J. Powell, chair.     

  102   Bridge to a Sustainable  1995       National Science &         U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, 87 p.
        Future                              Technology Council         

  103   Building a Scientific    1995       NSTC / CENR / Ecosystem    <http://www.cop.noaa.gov/pubs/ewgfn2.txt>
        Basis to Ensure the                 Working Group              
        Vitality and                                                   
        Productivity of U.S.                                           
        Ecosystems                                                     

  104   Ecology and Oceanography 1995       Woods Hole Oceanographic   Anderson, D.M. (workshop chair). Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
        of Harmful Algal Blooms             Institution with support   
        (ECOHAB): A National                from NSF and NOAA          
        Research Agenda                                                

  105   Enhancing the            1995       Dutch National Research    NRP Programme Office, Report no: 410 100 090 (C. Bernabo, M. Hisschemoller
        effectiveness of                    Programme on Global Air    & J. Klabbers)
        research to assist                  Pollution and Climate      
        international climate               Change                     
        change policy                                                  
        development                                                    

  106   Managing Global Genetic  1995       National Academy of        National Academy Press
        Resources (4 Volumes)               Sciences                   

  107   Molecular Biology in     1995       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Marine Science:                     Ocean Studies Board        
        Scientific Questions,                                          
        Technological                                                  
        Approaches, and                                                
        Practical Implications                                         

  108   NSF in a Changing World: 1995       National Science           NSF 95-24. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA.
        The National Science                Foundation                 
        Foundation\'s Strategic                                        
        Plan                                                           

  109   Partnering to Build a    1995       Report from the National   <http://ateec.eiccd.cc.ia.us/ci1.html>
        Quality Workforce:                  Forum on Critical Issues   
        Critical Issues in                  in Environmental           
        Environmental Technology            Technology Education at    
        Education at Two-Year               Two Year Colleges, Held    
        Colleges                            March 2-4, 1995, in        
                                            Washington, DC             

  110   Preparing for the Future 1995       National Science and       NSTC, CENR. U.S. GPO. CENR Executive Secretariat 202-482-5916
        Through Science and                 Technology Council,        
        Technology: An Agenda               Committee on Environment   
        for Environmental and               and Natural Resources      
        Natural Resources                                              
        Research                                                       

  111   Priorities for Coastal   1995       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Ecosystem Science                   Ocean Studies Board        

  112   Research Restructuring   1995       National Research Council: National Academy Press. 1995. Washington, D.C.
        and Assessment: Can We              Commission on Physical     
        Apply the Corporate                 Sciences, Mathematics and  
        Experience to Government            Applications. Report of a  
        Agencies?                           workshop. W. Carl          
                                            Lineberger and Charles A.  
                                            Zraket, co-chairs          

  113   Science and the          1995       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Endangered Species Act              Board on Environmental     
                                            Science & Technology       

  114   Science, Policy, and the 1995       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Coast: Improving                    Ocean Studies Board        
        Decisionmaking                                                 

  115   Setting a New Course for 1995       NSTC:CENR: Subcommittee on NSTC:CENR: SUSCOS; Don Scavia (NOAA) Chair
        U.S. Coastal Ocean                  U.S. Coastal Ocean Science 
        Science                                                        

  116   Sustainable Agriculture  1995       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        and the 1995 Farm Bill              Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  117   The Conservation         1995       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Reserve: A Survey of                Science and Technology,    
        Research and Interest               Ames, Iowa                 
        Groups                                                         

  118   The Ecosystem Approach:  1995       Interagency Ecosystem      NTIS, U.S. DOC, PB95-265583
        Healthy Ecosystems and              Management Task Force,     
        Sustainable Economies.              Katie McGinty, Chair       
        Vol. 1 - Overview                                              

  119   The Ecosystem Approach:  1995       Interagency Ecosystem      NTIS, U.S. DOC, PB95-265591
        Healthy Ecosystems and              Management Task Force,     
        Sustainable Economies.              Katie McGinty, Chair       
        Vol. 2 - Implementation                                        
        Issues                                                         

  120   The Freshwater           1995       Assoc. of Ecosystem        Naiman, R.J., J.J. Magnuson, D.M. McKnight & J.A. Stanford (eds.). Island
        Imperative Research                 Research Ctrs.; Ecological Press, Washington, DC. 165 p.
        Agenda                              Soc. of Amer.; North Amer. 
                                            Benthological Soc.;        
                                            Internat. Assoc. for Great 
                                            Lakes Research; North      
                                            Amer. Lake Mgmt. Soc.;     
                                            Soc. of Wetland            
                                            Scientists; American Soc.  
                                            of Limnology &             
                                            Oceanography; funded by    
                                            NSF                        

  121   The                      1995       U.S. EPA, Office of Policy Carlyn E. Orians and Marina Skumanich, Battelle Seattle Research Center.
        Population-Environment              Planning and Evaluation    
        Connection: What does it                                       
        mean for Environmental                                         
        Policy?                                                        

  122   Understanding Marine     1995       National Research Council: National Academy Press. 1995. Washington, D.C.
        Biodiversity: A Research            Ocean Studies Board, Board 
        Agenda for the Nation               on Biology: Committee on   
                                            Biological Diversity in    
                                            Marine Systems             

  123   Waste Management and     1995       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Utilization in Food                 Science and Technology,    
        Production and                      Ames, Iowa                 
        Processing                                                     

  124   Assigning Economic value 1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
        to Natural Resources                Commission on Geosciences, 
                                            Environment and Resources, 
                                            Commission on Behavioral   
                                            and Social Sciences and    
                                            Education                  

  125   Atomic, Molecular, and   1994       National Research Council  National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Optical Science - An                                           
        Investment in the Future                                       

  126   Defining Soil Quality    1994       American Society of        SSSA Special Publication \# 35 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        for a Sustainable                   Agronomy, Crop Science     
        Environment                         Society of America, Soil   
                                            Science Society of America 

  127   El Nino and Climate      1994       NOAA Reports to the        NOAA Office of Global Programs and UCAR/OIES. Reports to the Nation on Our
        Prediction                          Nation; UCAR via NOAA      Changing Planet, Spring, 1994.
                                            Award no. NA27GP0232-01    

  128   Environmental Science in 1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        the Coastal Zone                    Water Science and          
                                            Technology Board           

  129   Foodborne Pathogens:     1994       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Risks and Consequences              Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  130   How Much Land Can Ten    1994       Council for Agricultural   Task Force Report. Paul Waggoner (chair). Council for Agricultural Science
        Billion People Spare for            Science and Technology     & Technology. No. 121 February 1994
        Nature                                                         

  131   Implications of the      1994       U.N. Food and Agriculture  Strauss, M.S. (ed.) 1994. American Association for the Advancement of
        Convention on Biological            Organization, Informal     Science. Washington, D.C.
        Diversity: Management of            Working group; Animal      
        Animal Genetic Resources            Production and Health      
        and the Conservation of             Division                   
        Domestic Animal                                                
        Diversity                                                      

  132   Life in the Soil: Soil   1994       Workshop sponsored by NSF  Workshop report. Diana W. Freckman, ed. Colorado State Univ. 24 p.
        Biodiversity: Its                   and UK Natural Environment 
        Importance to Ecosystem             Research Council . Diana   
        Processes                           W. Freckman, Editor        

  133   Restoring and Protecting 1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Marine Habitat: The Role            Marine Board               
        of Engineering and                                             
        Technology                                                     

  134   Science and Judgment in  1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Risk Assessment                     Board on Environmental     
                                            Science & Technology       

  135   Scientific Plan for a    1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Regional Research                   Polar Research Board       
        Programme in the Arctic                                        
        on Global Change                                               

  136   Strategies and           1994       American Academy of        Miller, R.V. & J.S. Poindexter. 1994. American Academy of Microbiology
        Mechanisms for Field                Microbiology colloquium    
        Research in                         report. Colloquium         
        Environmental                       supported by Oak Ridge     
        Bioremediation                      National Laboratory        

  137   Systematics Agenda 2000  1994       American Society of Plant  co-chairs: J. Cracraft, M. Denton, H. Eshbaugh, M. Novacek, N. Platnick. 34
                                            Taxonomists; Society of    p.
                                            Systematic Biologists;     
                                            Will Hennig Society;       
                                            Association of Systematics 
                                            Collections; funded by NSF 

  138   Technology for a         1994       National Science &         U.S. GPO, Washington, DC, 154 p.
        Sustainable Future                  Technology Council         

  139   Ten-Year Review of the   1994       Report commissioned by the NSF 94-26. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA.
        NSF Long-Term Ecological            NSF Biological Sciences    
        Research (LTER) Program             Directorate. Paul G.       
                                            Risser and Jane Lubchenco, 
                                            Co-chairs of review        
                                            committee                  

  140   The Long View            1994       National Science           NSF 93-154
                                            Foundation, Directorate    
                                            for Engineering            

  141   The National             1994       The National Biodiversity  The National Biodiversity Information Center Advisory Planning Board;
        Biodiversity Information            Information Center         Thomas Lovejoy (chair)
        Center                              Advisory Planning Board;   
                                            Thomas Lovejoy (chair)     

  142   The Role of Terrestrial  1994       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Ecosystems in Global                Board on Sustainable       
        Change: A Plan for                  Development                
        Action                                                         

  143   Valuing the Environment  1994       Proceedings of the First   Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series No. 2. The World
                                            Annual International       Bank, Washington, D.C.
                                            Conference on              
                                            Environmentally            
                                            Sustainable Development.   
                                            The World Bank.            

  144   A Biological Survey for  1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 205 p.
        the Nation \"Raven                  Commission on the          
        Report\"                            Formation of The National  
                                            Biological Survey,         
                                            Committee on the Formation 
                                            of The National Biological 
                                            Survey                     

  145   A Proposal for a         1993       Committee for the National Committee for the NIE, Washington, D.C.
        National Institute for              Institute for the          
        the Environment: Need,              Environment (CNIE)         
        Rationale, Structure                                           

  146   Agricultural Ecosystem   1993       American Society of        ASA Special Publication #55 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        Effects on Trace Gases              Agronomy, Crop Science     
        and Global Climiate                 Society of America, Soil   
        Change                              Science Society of America 

  147   Assessment of the U.S.   1993       NRC: Board on              National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Outer Continental Shelf             Environmental Science &    
        Environmental Studies               Technology                 
        Program. IV. Lessons and                                       
        Opportunities                                                  

  148   Biodiversity in Marine   1993       NSF-sponsored workshop     Butman, C.A. & J.T. Carlton (organizers). 1993. Workshop held Denver, CO
        Systems: A Proposed                 report                     
        National Research                                              
        Initiative                                                     

  149   Biodiversity on Private  1993       President\'s Commission on President\'s Commission on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
        Lands                               Environmental Quality;     President. 1993.
                                            Michael Deland (Chair);    
                                            Biodiversity Steering      
                                            Committee; Sharon Haines   
                                            (chair)                    

  150   Biotechnology for the    1993       Federal Coordinating       OSTP, Washington, DC. 90 p.
        21st Century: Realizing             Council for Science,       
        the Promise                         Engineering and            
                                            Technology, Committee on   
                                            Life Sciences and Health,  
                                            Biotechnology Research     
                                            Subcommittee, David Galas  
                                            chair.                     

  151   Choosing a Sustainable   1993       National Commission on the Island Press, Washington, DC
        Future                              Environment;               
                                            private-sector initiative  
                                            convened by World Wildlife 
                                            Fund                       

  152   Global Marine Biological 1993       Center for Marine          Norse, E.A. (ed.) Island Press, Washington, DC, 383 p.
        Diversity: A Strategy               Conservation, World        
        for Building                        Conservation Union, World  
        Conservation into                   Wildlife Fund, UNEP, World 
        Decision Making                     Bank. Elliott A. Norse,    
                                            ed.                        

  153   Incorporating            1993       Council on Environmental   O\'Malley, R., L. Langstaff, and M. Southerland. 1993.
        Biodiversity                        Quality with the U.S. EPA, 
        Considerations into                 DOD, DOI and DOT           
        Environmental Impact                                           
        Analysis Under the                                             
        National Environmental                                         
        Policy Act                                                     

  154   National Center for      1993       Joint committee report:    Carpenter, S.R. (chair of Report Preparation Committee). ESA & AERC
        Ecological Synthesis:               Ecological Society of      
        Scientific Objectives,              America and the            
        Structure, and                      Association of Ecosystem   
        Implementation                      Research Centers           

  155   National Center for      1993       NSF-sponsored workshop     Unpublished report
        Synthesis in Ecology: A             report                     
        Design Study                                                   

  156   New Perspectives on      1993       Sigma Xi                   Sigma Xi: Research Triangle Park, NC
        Environmental Education                                        
        and Research: A Report                                         
        on the University                                              
        Colloquium on                                                  
        Environmental Research                                         
        and Education                                                  

  157   Norway/UNEP Expert       1993       Hosted by: Norwegian       Sandlund, O.T. & P.J. Schei (eds). 1993. Conference held Trondheim, Norway
        Conference on                       Ministry of Environment &  
        Biodiversity:                       U.N. Environment           
        Proceedings                         Programme.                 

  158   Report of the NSB/CPP    1993       National Science Board,    NSB/ENV-93-9, National Science Foundation
        Task Force on the                   Committee on Programs and  
        Environment                         Plans, Task Force on the   
                                            Environment                

  159   Report of the Technology 1993       NSF BCS-92-07174; David H. Program for Environemtnal Engineering Education and Research Publication
        and Sustainable                     Marks, organizer           No. 94-1: MIT. 1993
        Development Workshop                                           

  160   Research Opportunities   1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        in Oceanic Biology                  Ocean Studies Board        

  161   Research Opportunities   1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        in Remote Sensing                   Ocean Studies Board        

  162   Research to Protect,     1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 242 p.
        Restore, and Manage the             Commission on Life         
        Environment \"Corson                Sciences, Committee on     
        Report\"                            Environmental Research     

  163   Risk and the             1993       Carnegie Commission on     <http://www.carnegie.org/science_tech/reg.txt>
        Environment: Improving              Science, Technology and    
        Regulatory Decision                 Government                 
        Making                                                         

  164   Science and Stewardship  1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        in the Antarctic                    Polar Research Board       

  165   Science, Technology, and 1993       NAS, NAE, IOM, Committee   National Academy Press, Washington DC, 54 p.
        the Federal Government:             on Science, Engineering,   
        National Goals for a New            and Public Policy          
        Era \"Griffiths Report\"                                       

  166   Statistics and Physical  1993       National Research Council: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
        Oceanography                        Committee on Applied and   
                                            Theoretical Statistics:    
                                            Panel on Statistics and    
                                            Oceanography; Dudley B.    
                                            Chelton and William F.     
                                            Eddy (co-chairs)           

  167   Understanding and        1993       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.
        Predicting Atmospheric              Board on Atmospheric       
        Chemical Change                     Sciences and Climate       

  168   A Science and Technology 1992       Carnegie Commission on     Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, New York, 37 p.
        Agenda for the Nation:              Science, Technology, and   
        Recommendations for the             Government                 
        President and Congress                                         

  169   Assessment of the U.S.   1992       NRC: Board on              National Academy Press
        Outer Continental Shelf             Environmental Science &    
        Environmental Studies               Technology                 
        Program. II. Ecology                                           

  170   Biotechnology and        1992       U.S. - E.C. Task Force on  U.S. - Commission of the European Communities Workshop: Airlie, VA 10/92
        Genetic Resources                   Biotechnology Research.    

  171   Enabling the Future:     1992       Carnegie Commission on     Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, New York, 72 p.
        Linking Science &                   Science, Technology, and   
        Technology to Societal              Government, Task Force on  
        Goals                               Establishing and Achieving 
                                            Long-Term Goals, H.        
                                            Guyford Stever, Chair      

  172   Environmental Research   1992       Carnegie Commission on     Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, New York, 143
        and Development:                    Science, Technology, and   p.
        Strengthening the                   Government, Task Force on  
        Federal Infrastructure              the Organization of        
                                            Federal Environmental R&D  
                                            Programs, Robert W. Fri    
                                            and H. Guyford Stever,     
                                            Co-Chairs                  

  173   EPA\'s Research Agenda:  1992       U.S. EPA                   U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
        Strengthening Science                                          
        for Environmental                                              
        Decisions                                                      

  174   Federal Funding of       1992       American Association for   AAAS Pub. No. 92-48S, Washington, DC, 72 p.
        Environmental R&D                   the Advancement of         
                                            Science, Directorate for   
                                            Science and Policy         
                                            Programs, by Kathleen M.   
                                            Gramp, Albert H. Teich, &  
                                            Stephen D. Nelson          

  175   Federal Ground-Water     1992       FCCSET: CEES: Subcommittee FCCSET: CEES: SWR; Steve Ragone (USGS) Chair
        Science and Technology              on Water Resources         
        Programs                                                       

  176   Federal Research on      1992       Federal Coordinating       FCCSET. 72 p.
        Environmental Biology               Council for Science,       
                                            Engineering and            
                                            Technology, Committee on   
                                            Life Sciences and Health,  
                                            Subcommittee on            
                                            Environmental Biology,     
                                            Mary E. Clutter, chair     

  177   Global Environmental     1992       National Research Council, Stern, P.C., O.R. Young & D. Druckman (eds.) National Academy Press; 308 p.
        Change: Understanding               Commission on the          
        the Human Dimensions                Behavioral and Social      
                                            Sciences & Education;      
                                            Committee on the Human     
                                            Dimensions of Global       
                                            Change                     

  178   Oceanography in the Next 1992       National Research Council: National Academy Press. 1992. Washington, D.C.
        Decade: Building New                Ocean Studies Board; Carl  
        Partnerships                        Wunsch, chair              

  179   Our Living Oceans:       1992       U.S. Dept. of Commerce:    U.S. Dept. of Commerce: NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-2. Washington, D.C.
        Report on the Status of             National Oceanic &         
        U.S. Living Marine                  Atmospheric Administration 
        Resources                           & National Marine          
                                            Fisheries Service          

  180   Our Ozone Shield         1992       NOAA/UCAR                  Reports to the Nation, Fall 1992, No.2

  181   Predicting our Weather:  1992       Federal Coordinating       OSTP, Washington, DC, 36 p.
        A Strategic Plan for the            Council on Science,        
        U.S. Weather Research               Engineering and            
        Program                             Technology, Committee on   
                                            Earth and Environmental    
                                            Sciences, Subcommittee on  
                                            Atmospheric Research       

  182   Preparing U.S.           1992       Council for Agricultural   Task Force Report. Paul Waggoner (chair). Council for Agricultural Science
        Agriculture for Global              Science and Technology     & Technology. No. 119. June 1992.
        Climate Change                                                 [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)

  183   Report of a Workshop for 1992       U.S. Department of         Unpublished report
        a National Park Service             Interior, National Parks   
        Ecological Research                 Service                    
        Program                                                        

  184   Restoration of Aquatic   1992       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 552 p.
        Ecosystems: Science,                Commission on Geoscience,  
        Technology, & Public                Environment, & Resouces,   
        Policy \"Cairns Report\"            Water Science & Technology 
                                            Board, Committee on        
                                            Restoration of Aquatic     
                                            Ecosystems                 

  185   Safeguarding the Future: 1992       U.S. EPA report of the     EPA/600/9-91/050. U.S. EPA. 1992
        Credible Science,                   expert panel on the role   
        Credible Decisions                  of science at EPA: Raymond 
                                            C. Loehr, Chair.           

  186   Science and the National 1992       National Research Council, National Academy Press
        Parks                               Board on Environmental     
                                            Science & Technology       

  187   Science, Technology, and 1992       Carnegie Commission on     Firth, P. and S. Fiske, eds. Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and
        the States in America\'s            Science, Technology and    Government, Washington, DC
        Third Century                       Government                 

  188   Soil and Water Quality:  1992       NRC: Board on Agriculture  National Academy Press
        An Agenda for                                                  
        Agriculture                                                    

  189   The Atmospheric Sciences 1992       Bulletin American          Dutton, J.A. 1992.
        in the 1990s:                       Meteorological Society     
        Accomplishments,                    73(10):1549-1562           
        Challenges, and                                                
        Imperatives                                                    

  190   The Atmospheric          1992       NRC Board on Atmospheric   John Dutton, Chair. National Academy Press
        Sciences: Entering the              Sciences & Climate         
        Twenty-first Century                                           

  191   Water Quality:           1992       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Agriculture\'s Role                 Science and Technology,    
                                            Ames, Iowa                 

  192   A Sustainable Biosphere: 1991       Workshop funded by         Huntley, B.J. + 18. Ecology International 20: 1-14.
        The Global Imperative               MacArthur Foundation &     
        \"ISBI\"                            Universidad Autonoma de    
                                            Mexico                     

  193   Environmental            1991       supported by NSF;          Conf. chairs: K.J. Williamson & H.G. Schwartz; editors: K.J. Williamson &
        Engineering Education in            sponsors: American Academy M.R. Miller; NSF 91-00098
        the Year 2000                       of Environmental           
                                            Engineers, Assoc. of Envi. 
                                            Eng. Professors & Western  
                                            Region Hazardous Substance 
                                            Research Center            

  194   Federally Funded         1991       Office of Technology       U.S. GPO, Washington, DC
        Research: Decisions for             Assessment                 
        a Decade                                                       

  195   From Genes to            1991       IUBS-SCOPE-UNESCO Workshop International Union of Biological Sciences, Paris, France. 124 p.
        Ecosystems: A Research              report. Otto T. Solbrig,   
        Agenda for Biodiversity             Editor. Supported by NSF   
                                            and U.S. Committee for the 
                                            MAB Program                

  196   Implementation: Science  1991       in Global Change and the   Gibbons, J.H. pp. 183-201. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Scoeity, Inc:
        and Technology                      Human Prospect: Issues in  Research Triangle Park, NC
                                            Population, Science,       
                                            Technology and Equity,     
                                            Sigma Xi Forum Proceedings 

  197   Justification and        1991       National Research          Gibson, J.H. (coordinator). 1991. Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, CSU,
        Criteria for the                    Initiative Competitive     Ft. Collins, CO.
        Monitoring of                       Grants Program/Cooperative 
        Ultraviolet Radiation               State Research Service     
                                            (USDA) & Colorado State    
                                            University                 

  198   Opportunities and        1991       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 67 p.
        Priorities in Arctic                Commission on Geosciences, 
        Geoscience                          Committee on ARctic        
                                            Solid-Earth Geosciences    

  199   Opportunities in the     1991       National Research Council, National Academy Press; Peter Eagleson, Chair
        Hydrologic Sciences;                Commission on Geosciences, 
        \"Eagleson Report\"                 Environment, and           
                                            Resources, Water Science   
                                            and Technology Board,      
                                            Committee on Opportunities 
                                            in the Hydrologic Sciences 

  200   Technology Development   1991       Sponsor: NSF BSR-91-00342; LTER Publication No. 12. 1991. D. Foster & E. Boose. LTER Network Office,
        in the LTER Network:                Report prepared in         Seattle, WA.
        Status Report on GIS,               response to NSF request.   
        Remote Sensing, Internet                                       
        Connectivity, Archival                                         
        Storage & Global                                               
        Positioning Systems                                            

  201   The Sustainable          1991       Ecological Society of      Lubchenco, J. et.al.. Ecology 72(2):371-412.
        Biosphere Initiative                America                    
        \"SBI\"                                                        

  202   Transforming Technology: 1991       World Resources Institute  Heaton, G., R. Repetto & R. Sobin, World Resources Institute, Washington,
        An Agenda for                                                  DC
        Environmentally                                                
        Sustainable Growth in                                          
        the 21st Century                                               

  203   1990\'s Global Change    1990       Report from a LTER         Long Term Ecological Research Network Office, University of Washington,
        Action Plan: Utilizing a            Workshop held Nov. 1989 in Seattle.
        Network of Ecological               Denver, CO. Support: NSF   
        Research Sites                      BSR-8996172                

  204   Climate Change: The IPCC 1990       Intergovernmental Panel on Cambridge University Press: Great Britain
        Scientific Assessment               Climate Change             

  205   Climate Variability and  1990       Proceedingsof a Long-Term  Greenland, D. and L.W. Swift, Jr. (eds).
        Ecosystem Response                  Ecological Research (LTER) 
                                            Workshop; LTER Network     
                                            Office (NSF-sponsored) and 
                                            USDA Forest Service        

  206   Conserving the World\'s  1990       IUCN, WRI, CI, WWF-US, and McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, et al., Washington, DC
        Biological Diversity                the World Bank             

  207   Ecological Impacts of    1990       Council for Agricultural   [http://www.cast-science.org](http://www.cast-science.org/)
        Federal Conservation and            Science and Technology,    
        Cropland Reduction                  Ames, Iowa                 
        Programs                                                       

  208   Forestry Research: A     1990       National Research Council  National Academy Press
        Mandate for Change                                             

  209   Global Stewardship: A    1990       National Research Council  National Academy Press
        Review of the Context               (?); Proceedings of a      
        and Challenges Facing               White House conference     
        Science and Economics                                          
        Research Related to                                            
        Global Change                                                  

  210   Reducing Risk: Setting   1990       U.S. EPA Science Advisory  SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, DC
        Priorities and                      Board                      
        Strategies for                                                 
        Environmental Protection                                       

  211   Arctic Social Science:   1989       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 75 p.
        An Agenda for Action                Commission on Physical     
                                            Sciences, Mathematics, and 
                                            Resources, Polar Research  
                                            Board, Committee on Arctic 
                                            Social Sciences            

  212   Environmental Accounting 1989       The World Bank             Ahmad, Y.J., S.E. Serafy & E. Lutz (eds). The World Bank, Washington, DC
        for Sustainable                                                
        Development                                                    

  213   Global Change and Our    1989       National Research Council: DeFries, R.S. & T.F. Malone (eds). 1989. National Academy Press,
        Common Future: Papers               Committee on Global Change Washington, D.C.
        from a Forum                                                   

  214   Intellectual Property    1989       American Society of        ASA Special Publication #52 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        Rights Associated with              Agronomy, Crop Science     
        Plants                              Society of America, Soil   
                                            Science Society of America 

  215   Investing in Research: A 1989       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 155 p.
        Proposal to Strengthen              Board on Agriculture       
        the Agricultural, Food,                                        
        and Environmental System                                       

  216   Loss of Biological       1989       National Science Board,    NSB-89-171, National Science Foundation, 19 p
        Diversity: A Global                 Committee on International 
        Crisis Requiring                    Science, Task Force on     
        International Solutions             Global Biodiversity, Craig 
                                            C. Black, chair            

  217   Opportunities in Biology 1989       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 448 p.
                                            Commission on Life         
                                            Sciences, Board on         
                                            Biology, Committee on      
                                            Research Opportunities in  
                                            Biology                    

  218   Research Priorities for  1989       The Society for            Soule, M.E. & K.A.Kohm (eds). 1989.
        Conservation Biology                Conservation Biology:      
                                            Supported by NSF and the   
                                            University of Michigan     

  219   Chemistry and the        1988       Sponsor: NSF Chemistry     J.W. Frost & D.M. Golden (eds.). NSF
        Environment                         Division                   

  220   Cross-disciplinary       1988       Institute of Mathematical  Olkin, I. And J. Sacks (co-chairs). 1988.
        Research in the                     Statistics; panel          
        Statistical Sciences                sponsored by NSF           
                                            (DMS-85-08383).            

  221   Future Risk: Research    1988       U.S. EPA Science Advisory  SAB-EC-88-040, Washington, DC
        Strategies for the 1990s            Board                      

  222   Research Priorities for  1988       National Science           Wildt, D.E. and U.S. Seal (eds.). 1988. NSF Project DCB 8821694. Workshop
        Single Species                      Foundation and the         13-16 Nov 1988.
        Conservation Biology                National Zoological Park   

  223   Water 2020: Sustainable  1988       Science Council of Canada. Science Council of Canada Report 40. 1988. ISBN 0-662-16220-X.
        Use for Water in the                Geraldine A.               
        21st Century                        Kenney-Wallace (chair)     

  224   Directions in            1987       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 331 p.
        Engineering Research: An            Commission on Engineering  
        Assessment of                       and Technical Systems,     
        Opportunities and Needs             Engineering Research Board 

  225   Environmental Impacts on 1987       President's Council on     Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-92338-X
        Human Health: The Agenda            Environmental Quality      
        for Long-Term Research                                         
        and Development                                                

  226   Environmental Impacts on 1987       Council on Environmental   Draggan, S., J.J. Cohrssen & R.E. Morrison (eds.) 228 p.
        Human Health: The Agenda            Quality, Interagency       
        for Long-Term Research              Subcabinet Committee on    
        and Development                     Long-term Environmental    
                                            Research, supported by NSF 

  227   Environmental            1987       President's Council on     Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-92336-3
        Monitoring, Assessment              Environmental Quality      
        and Management: The                                            
        Agenda for Long-term                                           
        Research and Development                                       

  228   Environmental            1987       Council on Environmental   Draggan, S., J.J. Cohrssen & R.E. Morrison (eds.) 128 p.
        Monitoring, Assessment,             Quality, Interagency       
        and Management: The                 Subcabinet Committee on    
        Agenda for Long-Term                Long-term Environmental    
        Research and Development            Research                   

  229   Geochemical and          1987       President's Council on     Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-92339-8
        Hydrologic Processes and            Environmental Quality      
        Their Protection: The                                          
        Agenda for Long-term                                           
        Research and Development                                       

  230   Geochemical and          1987       Council on Environmental   Draggan, S., J.J. Cohrssen & R.E. Morrison (eds.) 210 p.
        Hydrologic Processes and            Quality, Interagency       
        their Protection: The               Subcabinet Committee on    
        Agenda for Long-Term                Long-term Environmental    
        Research and Development            Research                   

  231   Infrastructure for the   1987       National Research Council, National Academy Press, 100 p.
        21st Century: Framework             Commission on Behavioral   
        for a Research Agenda               and Social Sciences and    
                                            Education, Commission on   
                                            Engineering and TEchnical  
                                            Systems, Transportation    
                                            Research Board, Committee  
                                            on Infrastructure          
                                            Innovation                 

  232   Preserving Ecological    1987       President's Council on     Praeger Publishers, ISBN 0-275-92337-1
        Systems: The Agenda for             Environmental Quality      
        Long-Term Research and                                         
        Development                                                    

  233   Preserving Ecological    1987       Council on Environmental   Draggan, S., J.J. Cohrssen & R.E. Morrison (eds.) 191 p.
        Systems: The Agenda for             Quality, Interagency       
        Long-Term Research and              Subcabinet Committee on    
        Development                         Long-term Environmental    
                                            Research                   

  234   Status and Future of     1987       Institute of Ecosystem     Occasional Publication of The Institute of Ecosystem Studies, the New York
        Ecosystem Science                   Studies                    Botanical Garden, Millbrook, NY. No. 3. 1987

  235   Technologies to Maintain 1987       Office of Technology       U.S. GPO, Washington, DC
        Biological Diversity                Assessment                 

  236   Global Change in the     1986       National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 91 p.
        Geosphere-Biosphere:                Commission on Physical     
        Initial Priorities for              Sciences, Mathematics, and 
        an IGBP \"Eddy Report\"             Resources, U.S. Committee  
                                            for an International       
                                            Geosphere-Biosphere        
                                            Program, John A. Eddy,     
                                            chair                      

  237   Organic Farming: Current 1984       American Society of        ASA Special Publication #46 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        Technology and Its Role             Agronomy, Crop Science     
        in a Sustainable                    Society of America, Soil   
        Agriculture                         Science Society of America 

  238   A Patron for Pure        1982       National Science           J. Merton England, NSF Publication Number NSF 82-24.
        Science: The National               Foundation                 
        Science Foundation\'s                                          
        Formative Years, 1945-57                                       

  239   Planning Future Land     1981       American Society of        ASA Special Publication #42 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        Uses                                Agronomy, Crop Science     
                                            Society of America, Soil   
                                            Science Society of America 

  240   Planning the Uses and    1979       American Society of        Agronomy Monograph #21 <http://www.asa-cssa-sssa.org/>
        Management of Land                  Agronomy, Crop Science     
                                            Society of America, Soil   
                                            Science Society of America 

  241   Impact of Climatic       1976       Sponsor: C.F. Kettering    The Institute of Ecology (a non-profit corporation)
        Fluctuation on Major                Foundation, Dayton, OH.    
        North American Food                 The Institute of Ecology.  
        Crops                               A. Dexter Hinckley,        
                                            Project Manager            

  242   Environmental Science:   1971       National Science Board,    NSB 71-1, National Science Foundation, U.S. GPO, 50 p.
        Challenge for the                   H.E. Carter, Chair         
        Seventies                                                      

  243   The Universities and     1969       Executive Office of the    J. S. Steinhart & S. Cherniack; U.S. GPO, Washington, DC., 22 p.
        Environmental Quality −             President, Office of       
        Commitment to Problem               Science & Technology,      
        Focused Education                   Report to the President\'s 
                                            Environmental Quality      
                                            Council by John S.         
                                            Steinhart and Stacie       
                                            Cherniack                  

  244   Science − The Endless    1945       National Science           Vannevar Bush report to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reprints available
        Frontier                            Foundation                 from NSF, Publication Number NSF 90-8.
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Appendix C - Individuals and Organizations that Provided Comments to the Task Force

*Comments submitted by individuals did not necessarily represent
organizational positions.*

*\"\*\*\" indicates that the organization\'s position was presented by
the individual.*

*Some individuals listed multiple affiliations. They are indented
following the individual\'s name.*

+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| **Name**       |   | **Organizational Affiliation**                   |
+================+===+==================================================+
| Abedon, David  |   | University of Rhode Island, Community Planning   |
|                |   | Department                                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Alessio, Julie |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Allenby,       |   | AT&T, Environment, Health and Safety             |
| Braden R       |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Applegate,     | \ | American Geological Institute, Government        |
| David          | * | Affairs                                          |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Bales, Roger   |   | University of Arizona, Tucson, Department of     |
|                |   | Hydrology and Water Resources                    |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Banks, Darryl  |   | CH2M Hill                                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Barber, Mary   | \ | Ecological Society of America                    |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Barker, Alex   |   | Dallas Museum of Natural History, Division of    |
|                |   | Collections and Research                         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Barlaz, Mort   |   | North Carolina State University, Department of   |
|                |   | Civil Engineering                                |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Bartlett,      |   | Committee for the National Institute for the     |
| Richard C.     |   | Environment                                      |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Mary Kay Inc.                                    |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Nature Conservancy of Texas                      |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | National Environmental Education and Training    |
|                |   | Foundation                                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Bencala, Ken   |   | U. S. Geological Survey, WRD-Research            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Benedick,      |   | Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory            |
| Richard        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Benoit,        |   | Yale University, Environmental Studies, Greeley  |
| Gaboury        |   | Laboratory                                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Bernabo, Chris | \ | RAND, Environmental Science and Policy Center    |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Bierbaum,      | \ | White House, Office of Science and Technology    |
| Rosina         | * | Policy                                           |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Blockstein,    | \ | American Ornithologists' Union                   |
| David E.       | * |                                                  |
|                | \ | Committee for the National Institute for the     |
|                | * | Environment                                      |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Ornithological Council                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Boersma, P.    |   | University of Washington, Zoology                |
| Dee            |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Society for Conservation Biology                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Boyle, Ed      |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Brakke, David  |   | Towson University, College of Science and        |
| F.             |   | Mathematics                                      |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Braverman, Hy  |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Breit, Luke    | \ | California Democratic Party, Environmental       |
|                | * | Caucus                                           |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Brigham, L.W.  |   | University of Cambridge (UK), Scott Polar        |
|                |   | Research Institute                               |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Broadbent,     |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| Jeffrey        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Brody, Michael |   | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of  |
|                |   | Strategic Planning                               |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Carpenter,     |   | University of Wisconsin, Madison, Limnology and  |
| Steven         |   | Geology                                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Chichilnisky,  |   | Columbia University, Program on Information and  |
| Graciela       |   | Resources                                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Chuang,        |   | USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service     |
| Liu-hsiung     |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Clark, William |   | Harvard University                               |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Cochran,       | \ | Alaska Native Science Commission                 |
| Patricia       | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Cook, Richard  |   | Allegheny College                                |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Courtney, Mark |   | NSF, Division of Environmental Biology           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Crovello, Ted  |   | University of Californi, Los Angeles             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Crumley,       |   | University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill        |
| Carole         |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Devitt,        | \ | SAES/USDA-CSREES National Environmental          |
| Mary-Ellen     | * | Initiative (SUNEI)                               |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Douglas, James |   | NSF, Division of Earth Sciences                  |
| L.             |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Drake, T.      |   | North Carolina State University                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Durett, Dan    |   | DANhIKO International                            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Eisenberger,   |   | Columbia University, Columbia Earth Institute    |
| Peter          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Elgar, Steve   |   | Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ellman, George |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Entekhabi,     |   | Massachusetts Institute of Technology            |
| Dara           |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Fawley, Marvin |   | North Dakota State University, Department of     |
|                |   | Botany                                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Fein, Jeremy   |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Field,         |   | Carnegie Institute of Washington                 |
| Christopher    |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Filippone,     |   | Passaic River Coalition                          |
| Ella           |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Fiscus, Dan    |   | University of Maryland, Center for Environmental |
|                |   | Science                                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Flint, Warren  |   | Five E's Unlimited                               |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Folger, Peter  |   | American Geophysical Union                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Friedrich,     |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| Otto           |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Frost, Tom     |   | NSF, Division of Environmental Biology           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Gallagher, E.  |   | Naval Postgraduate School                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Gautier,       |   | University of California, Santa Barbara          |
| Catherine      |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Getzinger,     | \ | AAAS, Directorate for International Programs     |
| Richard        | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Gibb, James G. |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Glasener, Karl | \ | American Society of Agronomy                     |
| M.             | * |                                                  |
|                | \ | Crop Science Society of America                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                |   | Soil Science Society of America                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Groat, Charles |   | U.S. Geological Survey                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Guza, R.       |   | Scripps Institution of Oceanography              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Haas, Charles  |   | Drexel University, Environmental Engineering     |
| N.             |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Haas, Peter M. |   | University of Massachusetts, Department of       |
|                |   | Political Science                                |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Harris, W.     | \ | NSF Biosciences Advisory Committee               |
| Franklin       | * |                                                  |
|                | \ | University of Tennessee, Division of Biology     |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hartwell,      |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| Penny          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Harvey,        |   | University of Kentucky, Department of Geography  |
| Francis        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hasbrouck,     |   | National Association of Environmental            |
| Bruce          |   | Professionals                                    |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hay, A.        |   | Dalhousie University                             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hayden, Bruce  |   | NSF, Division of Environmental Biology           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Heal, Geoffrey |   | Columbia University                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Heil, Kathleen |   | Chesapeake Biological Lab                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hirsch, Robert |   | U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hoagland, K.   | \ | Council on Undergraduate Research                |
| Elaine         | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hollander,     |   | NSF, Division of Social and Economic Sciences    |
| Rachelle       |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hood, Laura    |   | Defenders of Wildlife                            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Huberty, Brian |   | USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service     |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Hyps, Brian    | \ | American Society of Plant Physiologists          |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ignatenko,     |   | Russia, Kaqmchatka                               |
| 'Alescam' L.   |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Jensen,        |   | The Nature Conservancy                           |
| Deborah        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kanivetsky,    |   | University of Minnesota, Minnesota Geological    |
| Roman          |   | Survey                                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kauffman,      |   | Lancaster, PA, Board of County Commissioners     |
| Terry          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kaufman, Les   |   | Boston University, Department of Biology         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kirby, J.      |   | University of Delaware                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kirk,          | \ | AAAS, Directorate for International Programs     |
| Elizabeth J.   | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Kutz,          |   | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,            |
| Frederick W.   |   | Environmental Science Center                     |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Lashutka, Greg |   | City of Columbus, Ohio, Office of the Mayor      |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Levin, Simon   |   | Princeton University                             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Lippmann, T.   |   | Scripps Institution of Oceanography              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Liverman,      |   | Univesity of Arizona                             |
| Diana          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Maconochie,    | \ | New England Board of Higher Education            |
| Rosemary       | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Malone, Thomas |   | Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering   |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Sigma Xi                                         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Manheim, Frank |   | U.S. Geological Survey                           |
| T.             |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Coastal & Marine Geology Center, Woods Hole, MA  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Mann, Curt     |   | Association of American Veterinary Medical       |
|                |   | Colleges                                         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Mathews-Amos,  | \ | Marine Conservation Biology Institute            |
| Amy            | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Matson, Pamela |   | Stanford University                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| McClintock,    |   | University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of   |
| James          |   | Natural Sciences and Mathematics                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| McCreedy,      |   | Oceanwatch                                       |
| Cliff          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| McGillivary,   |   | U.S. Coast Guard Icebreakers                     |
| Phillip        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| McHenry, John  |   | North Carolina Supercomputing Center             |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | Committee on Atmospheric Chemistry of the        |
|                |   | American Meteorological Society                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| McKee, Art     |   | Oregon State University, Department of Forest    |
|                |   | Science                                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Melillo, Jerry |   | The Ecosystems Center, Woods Hole, MA            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Moberly,       |   | Pennsylvania State University                    |
| Heather        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Moffett, James |   | Woods Hole Oceangraphic Institution              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Mooney, Harold |   | Stanford University, Department of Biological    |
|                |   | Sciences                                         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Moore, Berrien |   | University of New Hampshire, Institute for the   |
|                |   | Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space                |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Moran, Emilio  | \ | American Anthropological Association Task Force  |
| F.             | * | on the Environment                               |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Morel,         |   | Princeton University                             |
| Francois       |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Morin, Nancy   | \ | American Association of Botanical Gardens and    |
|                | * | Arboreta                                         |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * | Flora of North America Project                   |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Newman, Arnold |   | International Society for the Preservation of    |
|                |   | the Tropical Rainforest                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Norse, Elliott | \ | Marine Conservation Biology Institute            |
| A.             | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| O'Grady,       | \ | American Institute of Biological Sciences        |
| Richard        | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Oberle, Mark   |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Orians, Gordon |   | University of Washington, Department of Zoology  |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | NRC, Board of Environmental Studies and          |
|                |   | Toxicology                                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Orme, Thomas   |   | Council for Agricultural Science and Technology  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Orr, Wilson    |   | Prescott College                                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ostfeld,       |   | Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY    |
| Richard        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Overbey, Mary  |   | American Anthropological Association             |
| Margaret       |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Paradise, T.   |   | University of Hawaii at Hilo, Geography &        |
|                |   | Environmental Sciences                           |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Parker,        |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| Thornton       |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Patz, Jonathan |   | Johns Hopkins School of Public Health,           |
|                |   | Department Environmental Health Sciences         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Pfirman,       |   | Environmental Science Department, Barnard        |
| Stephanie      |   | College, Columbia University                     |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Portney, Paul  |   | Resources For the Future                         |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Powers, Julian |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Press, Daniel  |   | University of California, Santa Cruz,            |
|                |   | Environmental Studies Department                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Preuss, Peter  |   | U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental      |
|                |   | Research and Quality Assurance                   |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Raney, Jay     |   | University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of         |
|                |   | Economic Geology                                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Raubenheimer,  |   | Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution             |
| B.             |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Reichman, O.   |   | National Center for Ecological Analysis and      |
| James          |   | Synthesis                                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Reinhart,      |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| Debra          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Rejeski, David |   | White House Council on Environmental Quality     |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Resetar, Susan |   | RAND, Environmental Science and Policy Center    |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Rickson, Fred  |   | Oregon State University, Department of Botany    |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Ritter, Don    |   | National Environmental Policy Institute          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Rittman, Bruce |   | Northwestern University                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Rupp, Lawrence |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
| D.             |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Satterfield,   |   | Decision Research, Inc.                          |
| Theresa        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Saundry, Peter |   | Committee for the National Institute for the     |
|                |   | Environment                                      |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Scalet,        | \ | National Association of University Fisheries and |
| Charles G.     | * | Wildlife Programs                                |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Schimel, David |   | National Center for Atmospheric Research,        |
|                |   | Climate and Global Dynamics Division             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Seaman, Nelson |   | Pennsylvania State University, Department of     |
| L.             |   | Meteorology                                      |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Sedell, James  |   | USDA, Forest Service                             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Sherman, Lou   | \ | American Society of Plant Physiologists          |
|                | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Shmagin, Boris |   | University of Minnesota, Department of Geology   |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Skiles, Jim    |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Somerville,    |   | The Carnegie Institution of Washington           |
| Christopher    |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Soule, Michael |   | University of California                         |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | The Society for Conservation Biology             |
|                |   |                                                  |
|                |   | The Wildlands Project                            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Soulen,        |   | T&MS, Inc                                        |
| Richard        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Stevenson,     |   | Boston College, Organization Studies Department  |
| William B.     |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Stone, John V. |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Strauss,       |   | Oregon State University, Department of Forest    |
| Steven H.      |   | Science                                          |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Sullivan,      | \ | Center of Science and Industry, Columbus, Ohio   |
| Kathryn        | * |                                                  |
|                | \ |                                                  |
|                | * |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Taylor,        |   | University of Michigan                           |
| Dorceta E.     |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Tenney, J.L.   |   | Arizona Resource Advisory Council                |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Thompson,      |   | Smithsonian Institution                          |
| Marilyn        |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Thornton, E.   |   | Naval Postgraduate School                        |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Tian, Lei      |   | University of Illinois, Agricultural Engineering |
|                |   | Department                                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Todd, Barbara  |   | Pinellas FL, County Board of Supervisors         |
| Sheen          |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Turner, Bill   |   | Clark University                                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Unsworth, Mike |   | Oregon State University, Center for Analysis of  |
|                |   | Environmental Change                             |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Weinman, James |   | NASA Goddard Space Flight Center                 |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Wilson, Thomas |   | Affiliation Unknown                              |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Wright,        |   | Xavier University, Deep South Center for         |
| Beverly        |   | Environmental Justice                            |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Yates, Terry   |   | University of New Mexico, Department of Biology  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Zimmer, Judy   |   | Environmental News Network                       |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+
| Zoback, Mary   |   | U.S. Geological Survey                           |
| Lou            |   |                                                  |
+----------------+---+--------------------------------------------------+

# Appendix D - Context for NSF's Approach to Support in the Environmental Area

In environmental science and engineering, the Foundation works closely
with the external community, through advisory committees and other
groups, to identify the most important environmental research needs. As
a result of this consultative process, environmental research directions
are proposed for allocation of resources. Although budget constraints
have made it impossible to accomodate all suggestions received by the
Foundation, many of the directions taken by new initiatives are strongly
influenced by external community recommendations.

Budget decisions are made by the Director in consultation with senior
Foundation staff, subject to review and approval by the National Science
Board and the Office of Management and Budget. These allocations are
subject to further review and approval by the President and Congress.
Criteria used include the Foundation\'s mission to support a broad and
balanced portfolio of research, Administration priorities as expressed
through the National Science and Technology Council, and other
priorities developed through the Foundation\'s long-range planning
process. NSF's Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) strategic
plan outlines key investment strategies and an action plan for
achievement of each of the outcome goals. There are common themes
running through these investment strategies, and the performance plan
reflects the importance of emphasizing activities that influence
achievement of multiple objectives.

The research agendas that influence the Foundation\'s environmental
programs have historically emerged from the academic community−either
individually, or, increasingly, in a coordinated and prioritized
framework. The significance of the research in advancing specific fields
of study has been a prime criterion for inclusion in these agendas. The
relevance of such research to societal issues is also vitally important.
A cogent argument for maintaining a vigorous fundamental research effort
in environmental science and engineering is for the Nation to have
information available that can be used to address as yet unknown
environmental problems likely to arise in the future. The NSF recognizes
these dual goals, and has recently promulgated revised review criteria
that address both the intellectual merit as well as the broader impacts
of work supported by NSF:

*What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?*

> How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and
> understanding within its own field or across different fields? How
> well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the
> project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of
> prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and
> explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and
> organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to
> resources?

*What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?*

> How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while
> promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed
> activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g.,
> gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will
> it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as
> facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the
> results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and
> technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed
> activity to society?

Coordination of planning, setting priorities, management, and evaluation
of NSF\'s environmental research and development activities in areas of
mutual interest with other agencies traditionally has been undertaken
through bilateral cooperation, but NSF has also played an active role in
the increasingly important multi-agency activities of groups established
under the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
such as the Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges activity of the
CENR. The NSTC/CENR informs and influences the process by which the
Foundation establishes research priorities and responds to policy
concerns.

A number of bi- and multi-lateral environmental activities complement
the NSTC/CENR initiatives. These include the NSF-EPA environmental
partnership, the NSF-NIH-USDA International Cooperative Biodiversity
Groups, the NSF-EPA-DOE-ONR Joint Program on Bioremediation, the
NSF-USGS-FEMA-NIST National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, and the
NSF-NOAA-NASA-DOD U.S. Weather Research Program. NSF\'s unique
relationship with the university-based science and engineering community
allows it to bring to the Federal planning table a valuable outside
perspective from the researchers themselves.

# Appendix E - Selected Centers Supported by NSF in Fiscal Year 1998 

NSF supports a variety of individual centers and centers programs to
advance science and engineering, particularly in the areas of
interdisciplinary research and the integration of research and
education. Centers are expected to share a commitment to addressing
scientific and engineering questions with a long-term, coordinated
research effort; ensuring a strong educational component; and developing
partnerships with industry to help ensure that research is relevant to
national needs.

The term \"Centers,\" in the context of this appendix, includes
consortia, collaboratories and similar arrangements intended to
facilitate research or educational activities. The Centers listed below
are either primarily involved in research related to the environment, or
conduct a subset of activities with relevance to environmental research
and education.

Examples of individual centers supported under broader center program
initiatives are listed in *italics.* Descriptions of center programs and
some individual centers may be found by searching the NSF web site
http://www.nsf.gov/home/search.htm.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Centers**                 
  --------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
  Centers of Research         
  Excellence in Science and   
  Technology                  

                              *Advanced Materials and Smart Structures*

                              *Environmental Science*

                              *Innovative Manufacturing of Advanced Materials*

                              *Systems Science Research*

  Collaboratory for Lower     
  Atmospheric Research        

  Digital Library & Spatial   
  Information for Ecological  
  & Environmental Studies     

  Earthquake Engineering      
  Research Centers            

                              *Center for Advanced Technologies in Earthquake Loss Reduction*

                              *Mid-America Earthquake Center*

                              *Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center*

  Electronic Library for      
  Environmental Impact        
  Evaluation                  

  Engineering Research        
  Centers:                    

                              *Biofilm Engineering*

                              *Biotechnology Process Engineering*

                              *Engineered Biomaterials*

                              *Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing*

                              *Interfacial Engineering*

                              *Marine Bioproducts Engineering*

                              *Offshore Technology*

  Environmental Molecular     
  Science Institutes          

                              *Chemical Sources and Sinks at Liquid/Solid Interfaces*

                              *Institute for Environmental Bioinorganic Chemistry*

                              *Institute for Environmental Catalysis*

  Global Change Institutes    

  Incorporated Research       
  Institutions for Seismology 

  Industry/University         
  Cooperative Research        
  Centers                     

                              *Berkeley Sensor & Actuator Center*

                              *Biodegradation*

                              *Building Environment*

                              *Center for Advanced Control of Energy and Power Systems*

                              *Cooperative Research Center in Coatings*

                              *Corrosion*

                              *Hazardous Substance Management*

                              *Integrated Pest Management*

                              *IUCRC for Biosurfaces*

                              *Surfactants*

  Land Margin Ecological      
  Research (LMER)             

  Long Term Ecological        
  Research Sites              

                              *Arctic Tundra*

                              *Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest*

                              *Cedar Creek Natural History Area*

                              *Central Arizona-Phoenix Urban LTER*

                              *Central Plains Experimental Range*

                              *Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory*

                              *H.J Andrews Experimental Forest*

                              *Harvard Forest*

                              *Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest*

                              *Jornada Experimental Range*

                              *Kellogg Biological Station*

                              *Konza Prairie Research Natural Area*

                              *Luquillo Experimental Forest*

                              *McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica*

                              *Metropolitan Baltimore Urban LTER*

                              *Niwot Ridge-Green Lakes Valley*

                              *North Temperate Lakes*

                              *Palmer Station, Antarctica*

                              *Plum Island Sound*

                              *Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge*

                              *Virginia Coast Reserve*

  Mathematical Sciences       
  Research Institutes         

                              Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications

  National Center for         
  Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 

  National Center for         
  Ecological Analysis and     
  Synthesis                   

  National Center for         
  Geographic Information and  
  Analysis                    

  National Optical Astronomy  
  Observatories               

  Plant Genome Centers        

                              *Functional Analysis of Arabidopsis Genome*

                              *Genomics of Plant Stress Tolerance*

                              *Soybean Functional Genomics*

  Regional Research           
  Institutes                  

  Research Centers on the     
  Human Dimensions of Global  
  Change                      

  Science and Technology      
  Centers                     

                              *Advanced Concrete Based Materials*

                              *Analysis and Prediction of Storms*

                              *Astrophysical Research in Antarctica*

                              *Biological Timing*

                              *Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate*

                              *Computer Graphics and Scientific Visualization*

                              *Engineering Plants for Resistance Against Pathogens*

                              *Light Microscope Imaging and Biotechnology*

                              *Microbial Ecology*

                              *Molecular Biotechnology*

                              *Southern California Earthquake Center*

  Science and Technology      
  Policy Institute            

  State/Industry/University   
  Coop. Research Centers      

                              *Capsule Pipeline for Coal*

                              *Intelligent Information Retrieval*

                              *Rock Mechanics*

  University NAVSTAR          
  Consortium (UNAVCO)         
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

# Appendix F - Selected Acronyms

AIBS American Institute of Biological Science

BE Biocomplexity in the Environment -- NSF theme area

CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (of the NSTC)

CNIE Committee for the National Institute for the Environment

DGE EHR Division of Graduate Education

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOI U.S. Department of Interior

DUE EHR Division of Undergraduate Education

EHR Directorate for Education and Human Resources

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPS Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

ESIE EHR Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

FY Fiscal Year (October 1 for Federal government)

GLOBE Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

HRD EHR Division of Human Resource Development

ICSU International Council of Science

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISEC Integrated Sciences for Ecosystem Challenges -- a multi-agency CENR
activity

LEE Life and Earth's Environment -- superceded by BE -- NSF theme area

LTER Long-Term Ecological Research

MMIA Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment -- an NSF competition,
part of USGCRP

NASA National Aeronautic and Space Administration

NBII National Biological Information Infrastructure

NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research

NCEAS National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis

NIH U.S. National Institutes of Health

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- in U.S. Dept. of
Commerce

NRC National Research Council

NSB National Science Board

NSF National Science Foundation

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

ONR Office of Naval Research

PCAST President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology

PI Principal Investigator

R&D Research and Development

R&RA Research and Related Activities -- an NSF budget line

REC EHR Division of Research, Evaluation and Communication

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program -- a multi-agency CENR
activity

# Box 1. Nature's Services: What Ecosystems Provide to People, What is at Risk and Why New Interdisciplinary Knowledge is Required

The ecological systems of the planet -- including forests, grasslands,
wetlands, riparian zones, estuaries, kelp forests, mangroves, coral
reefs and open oceans -- provide goods and services to people. The goods
are more familiar to most of us: food, fiber, medicines, and more
recently, genes. Only recently have we begun to understand and
appreciate the essential services provided by ecological systems.
Examples include purification of water and air, partial regulation of
climate, provision of fertile soil, cycling of nutrients, decomposition,
provision of pollinators, control of pests and pathogens, storage of
water and modulation of floods. Some services are local, others regional
and still others global. Ecosystems also provide yet another type of
service: places for recreation, enjoyment, inspiration and learning.
Together, these goods and services constitute the life support systems
for Earth (Daily 1997, Daily et al. 1997).

These services are a byproduct of the functioning of intact ecological
systems. Over the last century, a broad spectrum of human activities has
inadvertently resulted in substantial changes to many of these
ecosystems (see Box 3) and consequent disruption of the services
provided. As land is transformed, as ecosystems are fragmented, reduced
in size or lost, or as species are lost or transplanted, the functioning
of the system is disrupted or lost, and the provision of services is
often impaired (UNEP 1995). In most cases, we are beginning to
appreciate and understand these services because they are being
disrupted.

A recent example highlights the potential threats to vital services, the
economic consequences to disruption, and the potential for restoration
efforts to conserve essential services (Chichilnisky and Heal 1998).
Historically, the watershed of the Catskill Mountains provided the
ecosystem service of water filtration and purification. As recently as
1948, New York City had what was billed as the purest water in the
world. Over time, this watershed ecosystem became overwhelmed by sewage,
industrial and agricultural runoff to the point that the water quality
in the city fell below EPA drinking water standards. An economic
analysis provided costs of two alternatives for restoring water quality.
The cost of purchasing and restoring the watershed so that it could
continue to provide the service of purification and filtration was
calculated to be \$1 billion. The cost of building and maintaining a
water purification and filtration plant was \$6-8 billion in capital
costs, plus annual operating expenses of \$300 million. The City has
opted to buy and restore the watershed, i.e., to let nature work for
people. An additional benefit of this choice is that the watershed also
provides multiple other services not included in the analysis. As this
example illustrates, ecosystem services provide fertile ground for new
collaborations between economists and ecologists.

Natural and socioeconomic scientists have been collaborating on
environmental questions for well over a decade in a limited fashion.
There is presently not a common understanding among scholars as to the
most important unanswered questions or most fruitful directions for
future research. Such a research agenda will be necessary to fully
realize the benefits of information on nature's services.

REFERENCES

Chichilnisky, G. and G. Heal. 1998. Economic returns from the biosphere
− Commentary. Nature 391:629-630.

Daily, G.C. (ed.). 1997. Nature's Services. Island Press. Washington,
D.C.

Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Luchenco, P. A.
Matson, H. A. Mooney, S. Postel, S. H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G. M.
Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies
by natural ecosystems. *Issues in Ecology 2*: 1-16; available at
<http://www.sdsc.edu/~ESA/>

United Nations Environment Programme. 1995. Global Biodiversity
Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1140 pp.

# 

# Box 2. New Insight into Infectious Diseases: An Emerging Interface Between Health and the Environment

In the early 1960s, a disease outbreak occurred in the small
northeastern Bolivian village of San Joaquin that killed hundreds and
ultimately infected over one third of the population. The disease was
found to be caused by a new pathogen, Machupo virus, that was
transmitted directly from rodents to humans, causing a condition known
as Bolivian Hemorrhagic Fever. Reaction to the outbreak was largely
mounted by the public health community and quickly subsided once the
disease burnt itself out. Machupo virus and other similar pathogens have
been considered to be disease problems restricted to developing
countries, until 1993, when an outbreak of Hantavirus Cardio-Pulmonary
syndrome (HCPS) caused by a previously unknown Hantavirus, Sin Nombre
virus (SNV) occurred in the southwestern United States (Parmenter et al.
1993).

Hantaviruses are a group of RNA viruses, many of which are highly
pathogenic to humans (Keller et al. 1998). The new virus was found to
use the Deer Mouse, *Peromyscus maniculatus*, as its primary reservoir,
and to be fatal in almost 50% of human cases. Since this discovery,
almost 30 new hantaviruses have been found in the New World, half of
which are known to be pathogenic to humans (Hjelle et al. 1995). The
specific origins of these new viruses and the cause of the 1993 outbreak
appear to be due to a complex set of evolutionary and ecological
factors. Data from NSF-supported long-term ecological and biodiversity
research have played a significant role in solving the mystery of this
and other emerging viruses.

In the case of Hantavirus, it is becoming clear that a cascade of
climatic and biological events combine to cause increased risk to humans
(Ernest et al., in press). This new understanding, improved remote
sensing capabilities and modeling of complex systems is enabling
improved prediction and prevention of hantavirus outbreaks in the
Western United States. El Nino events are now known to trigger
population explosions of the host rodent populations and eventually an
increased incidence of infection in the mice and increased risk of
infection in humans.

This realization has led to a fundamental change in how we approach the
study of zoonotic diseases and is leading to the emergence of a field of
study in the ecology of infectious diseases. These studies are
multidisciplinary by design and require long-term data to be robust
(Parmenter et al. 1999). They hold great potential for allowing the
development of predictive models, not just for hantavirus, but for many
other zoonotic diseases. A clear understanding of the ecology and
evolution of these pathogens will be needed if we are to properly
respond to emerging biological threats, both naturally occurring and
man-made.

REFERENCES

Ernest, S. K. M., J. H. Brown, and R. R. Parmenter. In Press. Rodents,
plants, and precipitation: Spatial and temporal dynamics of consumers
and resources. OIKOS.

Hjelle, B. , B. Anderson, N. Torrez-Martinez, W. Song, W. L. Gannon, and
T. L. Yates. 1995. Prevalence and geographic genetic variation of
Hantaviruses of New World harvest mice (Reithrodontomys): Identification
of a divergent genotype from a Costa Rican Reithrodontomys mexicanus.
Virology. 207:452-459.

Keller D, P. Ettestad, C.M. Sewell, R. Rains, S. Englender, T. Woods, J.
Pape, D. Tanda, J. Reynolds, R. Hoffman, G. Mertz, G. Scully, D. Mapel,
F. Koster, J. DeLury, C. Hansbarger, B. Hjelle, T. Yates, J. Iralu, C.
Freeman, B. Hroch, A. Nunes, D. Loretto, D. Peter, R. Fulgham, L.
Courtois, M. Mattson, R. Charleston, and J. Cheek. 1998. Hantavirus
pulmonary syndrome - Colorado and New Mexico. *Journal of the American
Medical Association* 280: (6) 504-505

Parmenter, R.R., J. W. Brunt, D. I. Moore, and S. Ernest. 1993. The
Hantavirus epidemic in the Southwest: Rodent population dynamics and the
implications for transmission of Hantavirus-associated Adult Respiratory
Distress Syndrome (HARDS) in the Four Corners Region. Report to the
Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Sevilleta LTER Publication No. 41, 45 pp.

Parmenter, C. A., T. L. Yates, R. R. Parmenter, and J. L. Dunnum. 1999.
Statistical sensitivity for detection of spatial and temporal patterns
in rodent population densities. Emerging Infectious Diseases.
5(1):118-125.

# 

# 

# Box 3. Unprecedented Environmental Changes: New Challenges for Humanity

Assertions about a wide variety of environmental changes often grab
headlines. Sorting out fact from fiction, however, is frequently
problematic. Fortunately, credible information is available for some
important phenomena. The following summary highlights a number of
global-scale changes where the information is quantitative and
well-documented, the rates of change are known and the causes are
understood (Vitousek et al. 1997 and references therein). These
global-scale indicators of change provide a credible platform for
discussing environmental challenges.

**1. Between 40 and 50% of the land surface of the planet has been
transformed by human action.** Examples include the conversion of
wetlands and forests to urban and industrial areas or of grasslands to
pastures and agricultural fields. These transformations affect climate,
biodiversity, human health, and the delivery of critical ecosystem
services (see Box 1).

**2. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased
by 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.** Because we
can "fingerprint" this heat-trapping, greenhouse gas, we are certain
that the increase is a direct result of human activities, primarily the
burning of fossil fuels.

**3. Humanity currently utilizes over half the available surface
freshwater of the planet.** About 70% of that amount is used in
agriculture. Diversions and impoundments have altered river systems
substantially, with only 2% of U.S. rivers now running unimpeded.
Demands for clean water are expected to rise as the human population
grows exponentially.

**4. Human actions have doubled the amount of nitrogen fixed annually
since the beginning of the century.** This additional fixed N --
produced deliberately by the making of fertilizers and inadvertently as
a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion -- affects human health, climate,
biodiversity, urban smog, acid rain, fish kills, dead zones and harmful
algal blooms in coastal waters (see Box 4).

**5. Invasions of non-native species are increasing globally, with often
more than half of the plant species on islands and 20% or more on
continental areas nonindigenous.** This rearrangement of the biota of
the planet is occurring at vastly greater rates due to human activities.
Most biological invasions are irreversible; some have serious economic
and ecological consequences.

**6. One-quarter of the bird species on the planet have gone extinct,
due primarily to human actions (hunting and habitat destruction).**
Birds are one taxon for which reliable information about extinctions
exists. For lesser-known taxa, credible estimates suggest that rates of
species extinctions are approximately 100 to 1000 times those before
humanity's dominance of Earth.

**7. Two-thirds of the major marine fisheries are now fully exploited,
over exploited or depleted. Just over 40 years ago, this figure stood at
less than 5%.** Currently, 22% are overexploited or already depleted and
44% are at their limit of exploitation. In addition to the reported
biomass of landed catches, an additional 27 million tons of bycatch is
discarded annually, nearly one-third as large as total landings.

![](media/image2.png){width="4.583333333333333in"
height="2.0208333333333335in"}

Figure 1. Human dominance or alteration of several major components of
the Earth system. Data are expressed as (from left to right) percentage
of the land surface transformed; percentage of the current atmospheric
CO2 concentration that results from human action; percentage of
accessible surface fresh water used; percentage of terrestrial N
fixation that is human-caused; percentage of plant species in Canada
that humanity has introduced from elsewhere; percentage of bird species
on Earth that have become extinct in the past two millennia, almost all
of them as a consequence of human activity; and percentage of major
marine fisheries that are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted.
Figure is reprinted with permission from Vitousek et al. 1997, Science
277:494-499.

It is clear from these seven global-scale indicators of change that
human activities are transforming the planet in new ways, at faster
rates, over broader scales and in new combinations than ever before in
the history of humans on Earth. Our activities are inadvertently
changing the chemistry, the physical structure, and the biology of the
planet. Accelerated efforts to understand Earth's ecosystems and how
they interact with the numerous components of human-caused global
changes are timely and wise.

REFERENCE

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo. 1997.
Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.

# Box 4. Nitrogen: Newly Discovered Links Between Agriculture, Energy, Health, Fisheries, Tourism and Climate

After thousands of years of stability, the chemistry of the surface of
the Earth is changing rapidly (Schlesinger 1997). Research is beginning
to reveal some of the causes and consequences of changes in many
biogeochemical cycles. New information about one of the most basic and
important of these cycles, that of nitrogen, sheds light on some
puzzling environmental trends. Changes to the nitrogen biogeochemical
cycle are substantial and link together a wide variety of human
activities and concerns (Vitousek et al., 1997a,b). New knowledge is
needed to help guide decisions about future activities that could either
exacerbate or ameliorate emerging problems.

The abundant nitrogen in the atmosphere cannot be used directly by most
plants until it has been fixed (combined with carbon, hydrogen, or
oxygen). Until the beginning of this century, microbes and lightning
were the primary sources of nitrogen fixation, accounting for
approximately 90 to 130 million metric tons of N (Tg N) per year across
all terrestrial ecosystems. Humans contribute to nitrogen fixation by
making fertilizers, burning fossil fuels and planting legumes over
broader areas than they occur naturally. As the scale and rate of these
activities have increased, so too has the anthropogenic contribution to
the global nitrogen budget. At the beginning of this century, the
anthropogenic contribution to the nitrogen cycle was negligible. Now,
human activities dominate. More than 140 TG N is now fixed annually,
more than double the non-anthropogenic sources of terrestrial nitrogen
fixation.

When nitrogen was only scantily available to the biological world, it
served as one of the major limiting factors that controlled the
dynamics, biodiversity, and functioning of many ecosystems. Ecosystems
now flush with excess fixed nitrogen are changing rapidly. Nitrogen
unused by crops, lawns and garden plants, nitrogenous wastes from
livestock and human sewage, and airborne nitrogen resulting from the
burning of fossil fuels are disrupting a wide range of downstream and
downwind systems. Excess nitrogen stimulates the growth of algae and can
lead to eutrophication, toxic algal blooms, loss of oxygen ("dead
zones") in lakes and coastal waters, fish kills, loss of seagrass beds,
degradation of coral reefs, and loss of biodiversity including species
important to commercial and sport fisheries and shellfish industries. In
short, excess nitrogen "seriously degrades our marine and freshwater
resources and impairs their use for industry, agriculture, recreation,
drinking water and other purposes." (Carpenter et al. 1998.)
Human-driven alterations in the nitrogen cycle are also causing regional
and global change in the chemistry of the atmosphere, with serious
implications for the greenhouse effect, smog, and acid precipitation.
Nitrate contamination is also a potential concern for human health,
particularly in drinking water drawn from relatively shallow aquifers in
agricultural areas (USGS 1999).

Harmful algal blooms, some of which are triggered by increases in
nitrogen (and oftentimes phosphorus as well) can wreak havoc with
fisheries, aquaculture and tourism. They can also threaten human health
directly. Toxins produced by the algae may be concentrated in
filter-feeding bivalves such as clams, mussels and oysters or
transported through the water or possibly the air. The frequency,
intensity and duration of harmful algal blooms are increasing globally
and may be correlated with documented increases in nitrogen in coastal
waters.

Major scientific uncertainties concerning the nitrogen cycle include the
controls on nitrogen fixation and denitrification processes in coastal
and open ocean waters; causes of harmful algal blooms; transport of
nitrogen across the landscape and from air to soil and water;
evolutionary consequences of long-term nitrogen enrichment; variance in
and controls of nitrogen-retention processes among ecosystems; and the
specifics of nitrogen movement from large river basins back to the
atmosphere.

Now that the existence of the biogeochemical links across agriculture,
tourism, health, fisheries and industry are becoming better known and
knowledge is emerging about the extent to which human activities are
altering basic biogeochemical process, fundamental research to guide
understanding and decisions is urgently needed.

REFERENCES

Carpenter, S. R., N..F. Caraco, D. L. Correll, R. W. Howarth, A. N.
Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998a. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters
with phosphorus and nitrogen. *Issues in Ecology* 3: 1-12; available at
<http://www.sdsc.edu/~ESA/>

Carpenter, S. R., N.F. Caraco, D.L. Correll, R.W. Howarth, A.N.
Sharpley, and V. H. Smith. 1998 b. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters
with phosphorus and nitrogen. *Ecological Applications* 8: 559-568.

Schlesinger, W. H. 1997. Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change.
Second Edition. 588 pp. Academic Press.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. The Quality of Our Nation's
Waters−Nutrients and Pesticides. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225,
82 pp.

Vitousek, P. M., et al. 1997b. Human alteration of the global nitrogen
cycle: Causes and consequences. *Ecological Applications* 7: 737-750.

Vitousek, P. M., J. Aber, R.W. Howarth, G.E. Likens, P. A. Matson, D. W.
Schindler, W. H. Schlesinger, and G. D. Tilman. 1997a. Human Alteration
of the Global Nitrogen Cycle: Causes and Consequences. *Issues in
Ecology* 1: 1-15, available at <http://www.sdsc.edu/~ESA/>

# Box 5. Complexity Theory and Ecosystems

The eminent ecologist Gene Likens recently said that a major
intellectual limitation for environmental studies is the false
assumption that there will be simple, all-inclusive answers (Pace and
Groffman 1998). He went on to say that we must honestly face the awesome
complexity of ecosystems and incorporate that complexity into our
scientific endeavors. As scientists have departed from the historically
reductionist approach to studying natural systems, they have begun to
develop an important new range of capabilities that applies knowledge
about forecasted behavior. Ecological systems are highly nonlinear,
characterized by abrupt thresholds in dynamics and possibly chaotic
behavior. It is unreasonable always to expect accurate predictions for
these systems− even with additional resources for generating scientific
information combined with the prodigious computing power now available.
On the other hand, conceptual and analytical progress is accelerating
and we can increasingly expect serviceable forecasts of the range of
likely behaviors and the probabilities of various outcomes. Viewing
systems as complex and not as the simple sum of their parts is the key
to progress.

Ecosystem theory encompasses a wide range of approaches to understanding
complex systems: Empirical work, including experimental manipulation of
natural and model systems, as well as mathematical methods drawn from
other disciplines, such as cybernetics, control theory, information
theory, network theory, thermodynamics, self-organization and emergence
and hierarchy theory (Muller 1992, 1997). A fundamental issue is to
integrate systems behavior across levels of resolution in space and time
to address the generatikon and maintenance of biological complexity
across multiple spatio-temporal levels of resolution.

Stated simply, driving variables influence rates of processes that
determine flows of matter and energy among components of the ecosystem,
and thereby determine the structure and properties of the ecosystem
(Elliott et al. 1994). System properties at a higher level of resolution
become driving variables at the next lower level (Allen and Starr 1982).
The causal relationships showing how driving variables determine
properties of the ecosystem are studied through experimentation, and
this information is expressed in mathematical simulation models that
capture the quantitative relationships at each level, thereby producing
a nested set of predictive capabilities. Moving back up through the
levels becomes a statistical exercise where taking many individual
samples at one spatial scale provides knowledge of the structure at the
next spatial scale (Allen et al. 1984). This scaling allows
extrapolation of information; for example, of microbial processes within
soil pores to much larger spatial scales.

Perhaps the greatest significance of this approach is that information
on driving variables derived at larger scales (for example, from
satellite imagery) can be used to drive linked simulation models down to
levels of microbial communities and make predictions of properties that
could never be adequately sampled. These modeled properties can be
scaled back up to the regional level as forecasts that may be used by
decision makers. Such an approach is an example of the tremendous power
becoming available to us as we begin linking complexity theory (holarchy
and systems theory) with disciplinary knowledge (ecosystem science,
microbial ecology) and experimental approaches. Information derived in
this way must be carefully evaluated by comparing with observations
before it is applied to real-world situations.

Scientists have learned that even simple rules can generate very complex
behaviors and that systems can be very sensitive to initial conditions.
This means that making long-term or large-scale predictions may be much
more difficult than we initially thought, if not impossible in some
cases. Complex systems are probably not understandable in the same way
as simple systems, although sometimes complex rules can generate simple
behavior, arguing the need to extract the "knowable" from the
"unknowable" (Levin 1999). Small variations may lead to large changes
that are not always predictable. So called "exceptional" events turn out
to be not all that rare. This new understanding is leading to
fundamentally new approaches that will provide essential insight and
guidance to members of the public and policy-makers. While significantly
more research will clearly advance our ability to apply knowledge of
ecosystem and other system behavior, we must be wary of delivering what
might appear to be firm predictions about issues of concern to the
public. Ecosystems are not simple and much better understanding must be
obtained about the dynamics and management of complex biological systems
before we understand just how well ecological forecasts can be made.

REFERENCES

Allen, T.F. and T.B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological
Complexity. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 310 pp.

Allen, T.F., R.V. O'Neill, and T.W. Hoekstra. 1984. Interlevel relations
in ecological research and management: Some working principles from
hierarchy theory. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-110.
Fort Collins, CO. 11 pp.

Elliott, E.T., H.H. Janzen, C.A. Campbell, C.V. Cole, and R.J.K. Myers.
1994. Principles of ecosystem analysis and their application to
integrated nutrient management and assessment of sustainability. In:
R.C. Wood and J. Dumanski (eds.), Sustainable Land Management for the
21^st^ Century. Volume 2: Plenary Papers. Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Sustainable Land Management for the 21^st^
Century. University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge.

Levin, S. A. 1999. Fragile Dominion − Complexity and the Commons.
Perseus Books, Reading, MA. 250 pp.

Muller, F. 1997. Hierarchical approaches to ecosystem theory.
*Ecological Modeling* 63:215-242.

Muller, F. 1997. State-of-the-art in ecosystem theory. *Ecological
Modeling* 100:135-161.

Pace, M.L. and P.M. Groffman. 1998. Successes, limitations, and
frontiers in ecosystem science: Reflections on the Seventh Cary
Conference. *Ecosystems* 1:137-142.

# 

# 

# Box 6. New Goals for Environmental Technology

For many years, the dominant environmental paradigm has been learning
too late. Waste streams from every sector of society have been
discovered to cause unintended problems, necessitating after-the-fact
treatment and remediation, often at immense cost and effort.
Ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons, brain-damaging heavy metals such
as mercury and lead, reproductive-system-impairing persistent organic
pollutants such as DDT and PCBs are a few familiar examples of learning
too late. The new goal for environmental technology is to "learn more
before doing."

For example, the development of microarray technology for analyzing
simultaneously the total component of genome-encoded messenger RNA holds
promise for allowing biologists to evaluate gene expression, protein
function, and metabolism at the whole-genome level. Microarray analysis
is being adapted to evaluate microbial community diversity and
speciation. Research is needed to couple this technology to quantitative
models so that eventually it can be used to help understand the likely
responses of microorganisms to environmental perturbations.
Understanding how compounds travel through ecosystems as well as how
species interact will enable more comprehensive understanding of likely
consequences of different compounds or technologies.

In another example, as the rate of synthesis of new chemicals grows,
screening compounds early and anticipating possible environmental
interactions will be key. Presently we are able to do rapid prototyping
and learning about potential environmental impacts as a part of
production. Can we use the capacity we have in computer simulation
modeling together with an increasingly sophisticated understanding of
atmospheric, aquatic, and terrestrial systems to "learn more before
doing"? Scientists and engineers would like to explore the potential for
virtual prototyping, molecular modeling, and retrosynthesis in order to
help design environmentally benign production processes and products.

The integration of informatics, molecular biology, robotics and ecology
also has rich potential for environmental technologies that increase
efficiency, dematerialization and recyclability and may drop costs
substantially. A new and vigorous fundamental science and engineering
research agenda that highlights the promise and the priorities emerging
from the intersection of systems and complexity theory, quantitative
modeling, and environmentally benign technology development would be a
smart investment.

# 

# Box 7. The Information Explosion and the Technology Revolution

Understandable, credible and easily accessible information is essential
for managing our environment and natural resources. Recent revolutionary
changes in computation and communications capabilities have opened up
previously unimagined possibilities in the field of information
technology. These trends are expected to continue for the foreseeable
future. Simultaneously, the amount of data beaming down from satellites,
emerging from laboratories, and arriving from environmental research of
all kinds, is exploding -- the equivalent of more than a Library of
Congress worth of data every day. Research and development are needed to
harness the power of the new information technologies, capture the
wealth of new information and provide new and invaluable information for
decision-making and future research (PCAST 1998).

Acquiring data is not longer the major hurdle -- managing, validating
and understanding the data are the new challenges. The Web and Internet
connectivity have fueled the expectations by citizens, policy-makers,
scientists and mangers for ready-access to on-line data and metadata
(i.e., documentation essential for understanding the who, what, where,
and how of the data). While knowledge about environmental systems, even
though incomplete, is a vast and complex information domain, a second
source of complexity in this information is sociologically generated.
This type of complexity includes problems of communication and
coordination−between agencies, between divergent interests, and across
groups of people from different regions, different backgrounds
(academia, industry, government), and different views and requirements.
The kinds of data that have been collected vary in precision, accuracy,
and in numerous other ways. New methodologies for converting raw data
into comprehensible information are now feasible. The relatively new
field of informatics is developing tools to manage the complexity of
scope of modern databases. The biodiversity data bases in museums, for
example, are an untapped rich source of knowledge, representing more
than 750 million specimens of animals and plants nationwide and 3
billion worldwide. A "next generation" National Biological Information
Infrastructure (NBII) is presently being planned to address the needs of
this community of scientists (Frondorf and Waggoner 1996, PCAST 1998).
High-performance computer tools that could integrate access to
information from museum collections with ecological, genomic, weather,
and geographical data would be immediately useful for studies of
emerging diseases, exotic species, and ecological restoration.

Much of the talent needed to invent better means of converting from data
to useful information is currently employed in the private sector. The
potential benefit arising from public-private partnerships which would
bring together software and hardware designers with environmental
scientists and engineers is immense.

REFERENCES

President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST).
1998. Teaming with Life: Investing in Science to Understand and Use
America's Living Capital. PCAST Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystems.

Frondorf, A. and G. Waggoner. 1996. Systematics information as a central
component in the National Biological Information Infrastructure. Annals
of the Missouri Botanical Garden 83:546-550.

# Box 8. Genomics and Environmental Research

The first sequence of the entire genome of an organism was published in
1995. Since then, more than 20 entire genomes have been published and
many more are in progress. With the exception of one nematode worm, all
of the published sequences have been from microbes. Although genomic
sequencing of more complex organisms is in progress, what scientists are
learning from the analysis of microbes alone is fueling a scientific
revolution.

Some of the unanticipated findings were that in the genomes sequenced
thus far, about 40 -- 60% of the putative genes encode proteins that had
not been seen or studied before and approximately 25% of the putative
genes in each organism were unique to that organism. The large number of
unknown and unique genes led to the realization that the number of
microbial species thought to exist on Earth had been vastly
underestimated: At most, we have identified only about 0.01% of them.

Another startling finding is that relatively large pieces of DNA may be
transmitted from microbe to microbe− even across distantly related
phylogenetic domains such as the bacteria and the archaea (Nelson et al.
1999). Movement of DNA between these groups shatters the long-held
assumption of strict linear descent during evolution of species.
Systemacists and evolutionary biologists are now developing new
algorithms to analyze microbial evolution that will take into account
the lateral transfer of DNA (Pennisi 1999). Scientists are also
reevaluating the evolution of genetic processes and metabolism in this
new light. Inclusion of lateral gene transfer may help us understand the
evolution of complex biological processes as well as multicellular
organisms. The recognition that DNA can be transferred between even
distantly related microbes has increased scientists' interest in
understanding the extent and rate of interspecies communication.

Thus far, the genomic revolution has touched only the tip of microbial
life. We have at least as much to learn from genomic analysis of more
complex organisms, the plants, fungi and animals, including humans. For
environmental biologists the ability to understand how an organism
responds at the level of the whole genome will open up new areas of
analysis of host-pathogen interactions, environmental stress, evolution
of complex traits, population dynamics, and signal transduction at all
levels. Ultimately, genomic-scale analysis should allow us to
dramatically improve some predictive models, including those dealing
with community dynamics as a function of environment and
genotype:phenotype relationships.

REFERENCES

Nelson, K. E., R. A. Clayton, S. R. Gill, M. L. Gwinn, R. J. Dodson, D.
H. Haft, E. K. Hickey, J. D. Peterson, W. C. Nelson, K. A. Ketchum, L.
McDonald, T. R. Utterback, J. A. Malek, K. D. Linher, M. M. Garrett,
A.M. Stewart, M. D. Cotton, M. S. Pratt, C. A. Phillips, D. Richardson,
J. Heidelberg, G. G. Sutton, R. D. Fleischmann, J. A. Eisen, O. White,
S. L. Salzberg, H. O. Smith, J. C. Venter, and C. M. Fraser. 1999.
Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and Bacteria from
genome sequence of *Thermotoga maritima*. Nature 399:323-329.

Pennisi, E. 1999. Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science
284:1305-1307.

# 

# 

# Box 9. Human Dimensions of Environmental Questions

The demographic prospect for individual nations is widely variable. In
some countries, populations are projected to decline somewhat over the
next half-century, while other nations will experience a tripling of
population. Humans have always played a large role in forming and
modifying the environment. Environmental degradation, in turn, usually
carries a high human cost.

Historical ecology is emerging as a field of study capable of providing
lessons applicable to current problems. Researchers in this area trace
sequences of mutual causation between human acts and acts of nature
(e,g, DieffenbacherKrall 1996, Crumley 1993, Hammett 1992). Studies in
Europe have drawn from 10,000 years of human occupation to illuminate
human and environmental causes for increased erosion and desertification
of the northern Mediterranean region. As social, physical and natural
scientists develop a common language and shared concepts, they can more
effectively address the distinct historical and geographical
distributions of particular conditions, and their periodicity, duration,
and severity. Historical evidence records past human choice and response
in which the effects of environmental change can be understood. While
unfamiliarity with environmental patterns and processes can lead to
disastrous choices and actions, local knowledge about the environment,
culture, and history can serve both as a practical basis for regionally
appropriate solutions, and as a means of increasing familiarity with and
support for eventual policies.

Studies of the biosphere and society also reach to the future to address
such topics as system dynamics; growth, regulation, and sustainable
consumption; and participatory processes in the management of natural
resources. For example, to understand better the human dimensions of
deforestation and reforestation, an interdisciplinary team of
demographers, geographers, earth scientists, ecologists,
anthropologists, and political scientists has combined theories of human
decision making about land cover conditions with detailed analyses of
field sites. In a careful empirical design focusing on a delimited range
of forest biomes with three major types of forest ownership, the
researchers can identify the differential impact of social processes on
sites. Preliminary findings range from the identification of key
biophysical and behavioral variables associated with differences in
rates of forest regrowth to further understanding of the relationship
between forest conditions and property rights systems. Expanding support
for global and regional studies of land use and land cover change,
employing remote-sensing and geographic information systems technologies
with anthropological, ecological, and survey research, can advance our
understanding and forecasting of socio-environmental interactions.

All societies face decisions about the relationship between
environmental protection and economic development, and all societies
differ in the cultural, historical, and political context in which those
decisions must occur. Attempts to generalize across systems have been
illuminating but inconclusive, in part because study designs often have
focused on comparisons across similar systems, or because underlying
theory was poorly addressed. To complement and energize
interdisciplinary empirical studies of society and biosphere, attention
is needed to developing a strong theoretical framework for this
research.

REFERENCES

Crumley, C. L. 1993. Analyzing historic ecotonal shifts. Ecological
Applications. 3:377-384.

DieffenbacherKrall, A. C. 1996. Paleo- and historical ecology of the
Cutler grasslands, Cutler, Maine (USA): Implications for future
management. Natural Areas Journal 16:3-13.

Hammett, J. E. 1992. The shapes of adaptation − historical ecology of
anthropogenic landscapes in the Southeastern United States. Landscape
Ecology 7:121-135.

# 

# Box 10. The Ocean Beneath the Sea Floor

The ocean sciences may be on the threshold of a major scientific
revolution linking the origins and sustainability of life on this planet
to the potential for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
Utilizing rapidly emerging technology in fiber optics information
transmission, robotic and manned submersible sampling systems, molecular
biology, genomic sequencing and more, NSF, in cooperation with other
agencies in the National Ocean Partnership Program and internationally
in the Ocean Drilling Program, has embarked on the design of seafloor
observatories and new deep drilling technologies. The purpose is to
explore the ocean beneath the sea floor -- the deep biosphere -
organisms living in extreme conditions of temperature, pressure and
absence of sunlight - known to populate regions around sea floor vents
spewing hot water and chemical energy and the potentially huge ecosystem
of microorganisms deep within the Earth\'s crust (Figure 2). For
primordial life forms, these may well have been the normal conditions
for them at the dawn of evolution.

![](media/image3.png)**Figure 2. This vigorously venting hydrothermal
deposit stands 45 meters above the seafloor and is forming on the Juan
de Fuca Ridge, 2100 meters below sea level. The manned submersible ALVIN
is shown for scale. Drawing by Veronique Robigou, courtesy of University
of Washington.**

# Box 11. Statistical Prevention Models for Wildfire Suppression

Some of the most devastating natural disasters in the history of the US
have been caused by wildfires. Environmental statistical research models
fire occurrence as a marked spatial-temporal point process whose
conditional rate depends not only on the record of previous fires, but
on other covariates including environmental factors such as temperature,
altitude, humidity, precipitation, vegetation, and soil characteristics.
Using advanced statistical research, investigators are constructing
quantitative predictions of local fire hazard accompanied by estimates
of uncertainties in these predications. In particular, research in the
Los Angeles basin will integrate these predicted hazards into detailed,
regularly-updated maps of risk that are available to the public. The
strategy is to exploit local trends in fire occurrence and the
relationships between the incidence of fires and other environmental
factors. This basic research could have important public policy
implications relating to more aggressive fire suppression and prescribed
burning.

[^1]: <http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsb98215>

[^2]: National Science Board. 1998. National Science Board Strategic
    Plan. NSB 98-215.

[^3]: National Science Foundation. 1995. NSF in a Changing World: the
    National Science Foundation's Strategic Plan. NSF 95-24.

[^4]: Resetar, S., B. E. Lachman, R. Lempert, and M. M. Pinto. 1999.
    Technology Forces at Work. RAND Science and Technology Policy
    Institute. Available at <http://www.rand.org/>

[^5]: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1992. The
    OECD Environment Industry: Situation, Prospects, and Government
    Policies. OECD, Paris.

[^6]: National Science and Technology Council. 1994. Technology for a
    Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action. NSTC. Washington, D.C.

[^7]: National Science and Technology Council. 1995. Preparing for the
    Future Through Science and Technology. An Agenda for Environmental
    and Natural Resource Research. Committee on Environment and Natural
    Resources. NSTC. Washington, D.C.

[^8]: <http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/be/>

[^9]: <http://www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/reu/start.htm>

[^10]: <http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97135/nsf97135.htm>

[^11]: <http://www.globe.gov/>

[^12]: [http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu](http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/)

[^13]: National Research Council. 1993. Research to Protect, Restore,
    and Manage the Environment. Committee on Environmental Research.
    National Academy Press. 242 pp.

[^14]: [http://www.cnie.org](http://www.cnie.org/)

[^15]: <http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm>