Illuminating next steps for NEON.

In his 7 August In Depth News story “The dimming of NEON” (p. [574][1]), J. Mervis reported cuts to the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) National Ecological Observatories Network (NEON) program. NEON is a highly ambitious research program that attempts to observe biological and ecological phenomena at unprecedented scales ([ 1 ][2]). We served as science advisers, evaluating a series of budget and technical problems that compromised the envisioned capabilities of the Observatory. We recommended changes that will leave an Observatory of extraordinary value, provide continental coverage, and deliver transformational science ([ 2 ][3]). Mervis focused on STREON, one of the most important conceptual components of NEON despite accounting for only a few percent of the budget. The STREON design adds an otherwise missing element to NEON by altering stream ecosystems, and NSF should identify a funding path to restore it. Deferment of STREON places crucial science at risk. Despite his generally upbeat appraisal of the Observatory, Mervis raised serious concerns of a broader nature, including “high staff turnover and conflicts created by giving scientists what they felt was insufficient authority.” NSF's model for project management emphasizes early science involvement in the design, but execution by project management professionals ([ 3 ][4]). This approach limited NEON's ability to adapt scientifically as unforeseen technical and scientific challenges arose. Many of the challenges that derailed NEON were evident long ago, and some could have been addressed by peer-to-peer engagement between science and project management. Re-engaging the scientific community at this time will provide benefits for NSF, NEON, and the broader ecological community. A renewal of science leadership, and scientific peer review, are required to lead to final project success, allowing NEON to realize its benefits to science and society. 1. [↵][5]1. M. Keller, 2. D. S. Schimel, 3. W. W. Hargrove, 4. F. M. Hoffman , Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 282 (2008). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7] 2. [↵][8]1. K. Sand , Special report: Recommendations related to NSF Scope Management Directives (2015); [www.neoninc.org/updates-events/update/special-report-recommendations-response-nsf-scope-management-directives][9]. 3. [↵][10]1. D. Schimel, 2. M. Keller , Oecologia 177, 925 (2015). [OpenUrl][11][CrossRef][12][PubMed][13] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.349.6248.574 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DFront.%2BEcol.%2BEnviron.%26rft.volume%253D6%26rft.spage%253D282%26rft.atitle%253DFRONT%2BECOL%2BENVIRON%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1890%252F1540-9295%25282008%25296%255B282%253AACSFTN%255D2.0.CO%253B2%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1890/1540-9295(2008)6[282:ACSFTN]2.0.CO;2&link_type=DOI [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: http://www.neoninc.org/updates-events/update/special-report-recommendations-response-nsf-scope-management-directives [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DOecologia%26rft.volume%253D177%26rft.spage%253D925%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1007%252Fs00442-015-3236-3%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F25680334%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [12]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00442-015-3236-3&link_type=DOI [13]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=25680334&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F349%2F6253%2F1176.3.atom