1 / 16

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) MARCH 20-21, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) MARCH 20-21, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND • IMMENSE IMPORTANCE OF COASTS • UNPRECEDENTED POPULATION GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT • PROBLEMS EVIDENT ALL SCALES: GLOBAL TO LOCAL • DISTRIBUTED NATURE OF PROBLEMS/POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS

amyadams
Télécharger la présentation

SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) MARCH 20-21, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) MARCH 20-21, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC BACKGROUND • IMMENSE IMPORTANCE OF COASTS • UNPRECEDENTED POPULATION GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT • PROBLEMS EVIDENT ALL SCALES: GLOBAL TO LOCAL • DISTRIBUTED NATURE OF PROBLEMS/POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS • EMERGENCE OF COASTAL POLITICAL CONSTITUENCY • TEMPORAL URGENCY OF MANAGEMENT NEEDS

  2. FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES • Policy drivers • - sustainable economies • - adverse environmental impacts • - multiple use reconciliation • Demands on agency • - environmental knowledge/understanding • - environmental literacy, education • - rapid synthesis and promulgation of information • Universities essential to NOAA • - Sea Grant effective in engagement • - Sea Grant competencies aligned with demand • - strong political/constituency support • Future growth prospects favorable • - services/products • - integration with NOAA • - interagency partnerships

  3. SEA GRANT • Established by legislation • Partnership of academia, government, industry • Mission: Sustainable development of coastal • & Great Lakes resources • Addresses coastal, marine, Great Lakes issues • Nationally coordinated network of 30 programs • Science-based with education & outreach

  4. PURPOSE AND FUNCTION • Engages university capabilities for mission related objectives • Provides services (research, outreach) for constituents • Involves user groups in priority setting • Impacts • - public policy • - local and national economic development

  5. GUIDING PRINCIPLES • Management critical, place based science • Constituent involvement in priority setting • Synthesis/dissemination to users

  6. BOTTOM LINE: • Sea Grant is in the R&D and information transfer business providing: • objective information to • - critical user groups • - managers • - policy makers • - industry • - public • cost-effective, responsive, results-oriented

  7. SEA GRANT THEMATIC AREAS • Marine aquaculture • Biotechnology • Nonindigenous species • Essential fish habitat • Urban/suburban coast • Natural hazards/coastal processes • Noxious algal blooms/hypoxia • Nonpoint source pollution • Environmental monitoring (technology/methodology) • Regional research • Shellfish, diseases/pathogens

  8. NSF PROPOSAL • NOT A TRANSFER PROGRAMMATICALLY, A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION PRIMARILY • NSF GAINS $57M TO RUN ADDITIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS IN AREAS THEY ARE ALREADY SERVING TO VARIOUS DEGREES • NSF LOSS: CA. $34M IN MATCHING FUNDS • NOAA MAY HAVE SOME INPUT TO RESEARCH AGENDA; NSF AGENDAS PRIMARILY SET BY SCIENCE COMMUNITY, GOAL IS ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE/KNOWLEDGE • NATION LOSES SG INFRASTRUCTURE (LAND GRANT PARADIGM)

  9. NOAA LOSS • LOSE $108 MILLION IN UNIVERSITY BASED RESEARCH AND OUTREACH; ITS PRINCIPLE EXTRAMURAL COASTAL PROGRAM • LOSS OF LAND GRANT PARADIGM (CONGRESSIONAL INTENT) - COLLEGE INFRASTRUCTURE: RESEARCH, EDUCATION, EXTENSION - LONG LASTING CONSTITUENT RELATIONSHIPS - PRINCIPLE MECHANISM FOR INFORMATION TRANSFER TO USERS - A MAJOR CONDUIT TO STATE AGENCIES - PROGRAMS IN MANAGEMENT CRITICAL, PLACE BASED SCIENCE - A PROVEN PARADIGM THAT WORKS, DEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS - A PROGRAM ESTEEMED BY THOSE IT SERVES, POLITICALLY POPULAR - SIMILAR TO: USDA LAND GRANT, NIH, SPACE GRANT

  10. MANAGEMENT ISSUESSCIENCE QUALITY (QUANTITY)• SG SCIENCE PEER REVIEWED, COMPETITIVE• INVESTIGATOR TURNOVER HIGH• HIGH PROPOSAL DEMAND• RELEVANCE REVIEW, MISSION ORIENTED• SG SCIENCE NOT “INFERIOR” (SEE NRC REPORT) - USE SAME UNIVERSITIES, INVESTIGATORS, REVIEWERS AS NSFMATCHING FUNDS INCREASE FEDERAL OUTLAY BY 50+% = MORE R&D PER US $ INVESTED

  11. MANAGEMENT ISSUES (cont.) MARKET BASED COMPETITION (SEA GRANT COLLEGES)•CHOSEN BY COMPETITIVE PROCESS•LEGISLATION REQUIRES “INFRASTRUCTURE”•PERFORMANCE = SECRETARIAL REVIEW & APPOINTMENT•CA 40% OF BUDGET = INFRASTRUCTURE (PEER REVIEWED PROGRAMMATICALLY)•RIGOROUS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA (4 YEARS)•LIMIT ON # OF PROGRAMS, PERFORMANCE BASED•DISTINGUISHED NATIONAL REVIEW BOARD•OUTCOMES EMPHASIS/STRONG ACCOUNTABILITY•ENGAGED TOP UNIVERSITIES IN NATION IN NETWORK•NOAA COST TO ADMINISTER PROGRAM IS CA 3% OF FUNDS (FED & MATCH) UNDER MANAGEMENT•PEERS/USERS: SG EFFICIENT, DELIVERS PROGRAMS OF HIGH QUALITY AND RELEVANCE•GREAT RETURN ON INVESTMENT ECONOMICALLY

  12. FIVE YEAR PLAN (I) OUTLINE • SCIENCE PORTFOLIO PROGRAMS • - INCREASE PROJECTS BY 50% (BY 8 to10/PROGRAM) • - INCREASE SUCCESS RATE TO 35% • GOAL: INCREASE BUDGET 50% $20M • NATIONAL SCIENCE COMPETITIONS • GOAL: INCREASE ACCEPTANCE TO NSF • AVERAGE $5-10M • OUTREACH • - MARINE EDUCATION INITIATIVES • - PROGRAMS (COMPETITIVE $2M) • - MSI’S ($1M) • - EXTENSION (FIVE AGENTS /PROGRAM) • * COMMUNITIES/FISHERIES • * PORTS/LEGAL • * URBAN • * GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE • * CLIMATE/HAZARDS $15/$20M

  13. FIVE YEAR PLAN (II) • REGIONAL RESEARCH • - PLANNING/OUTREACH (6 X $200K) • - RESEARCH PROJECTS • - NON-MATCH/FED PARTNERSHIPS • $2+M/REGION X 6 $15M • • NEW PROGRAMS • BASELINE = $1.2M • - CURRENT SMALL PROGRAMS ($4M) • - ELIGIBLE NEW PROGRAMS • (VT, PA, PACIFIC, IND, AL/$5M) $10M • GRAND TOTAL $70M • TARGET: $130-140M

  14. SEA GRANT IS COMPETITIVE AT THE STATE SEA GRANT PROGRAM LEVEL • During the 2000/2001 biennium, 1,387 proposals were submitted to state Sea Grant competitions. Following a rigorous peer review process, 344 projects were selected for funding, a success rate of 25%. • Of the 340 principal investigators for state Sea Grant research projects in FY 2001, only 104 also were principal investigators in FY 1998, representing a turnover of 69%.

  15. SEA GRANT IS COMPETITIVE • AT THE NATIONAL COMPETITIVE LEVEL • During the 2000/2001 biennium, 862 proposals were submitted • to national Sea Grant competitions. Following a rigorous peer • review process, 118 projects were selected for funding, a success • rate of just 14%. • Of the 133 principal investigators for national Sea Grant • research projects in FY 2001, only 15 also were principal • investigators in FY 1998, representing a turnover of 89%.

  16. SEA GRANT IS COMPETITIVE • OVERALL • During the 2000/2001 biennium, 2,249 proposals were submitted to Sea • Grant competitions. Following a rigorous peer review process, 520 projects • were selected for funding, a success rate of 22%. • Of the 452 principal investigators for Sea Grant research projects in • FY 2001, only 135 also were principal investigators in FY 1998, representing • a turnover of 70%. • Of the nearly $108M in Federal and matching funds awarded by Sea Grant • in FY 2001, about $63M, or 59%, was awarded through state and national • competitions. • About $36M, or 34% of the funds awarded by Sea Grant in FY 2001, was • used for proposal-based and peer-reviewed Extension, Communication and • Education programs necessary to meet the Congressional mandate of the • program.

More Related