5
NEXT STEPS

This session was moderated by Mr. Phil Smith, the former Executive Officer of the National Research Council (NRC). The discussion noted that although the start of the IPY is still three years away, planning must continue at a quick pace in order for the United States to be fully prepared. Much remains to be done to articulate a clear interagency science plan, create opportunities for scientists to propose concrete activities, develop funding mechanisms, develop international partnerships, and ensure provision of the necessary logistics and infrastructure. The next steps highlighted at the workshop include:

  • Continuing dissemination information about IPY planning to the science community and facilitating their involvement.

  • Developing mechanisms for input: Scientists and science teams are developing, and mechanisms need to be established for interfacing with these groups.

  • Integrating IPY goals with goals of Climate Change Science Program, Group on Earth Observations, etc.

  • Articulating and communicating the overall compelling science issues: This includes short-term and long-term benefits that matter to Congress and the public. To market the IPY, some participants suggested that we need to capitalize on inherent public interest, appeal to the pragmatic side of Congress, and ensure IPY is about good science.

  • Determining how something becomes part of “IPY” and what it means to be an “IPY” activity.

  • Increasing planning discussion for a wide variety of education and outreach activities: One possible idea would be to form a working group to continue the dialog about strategies for education and outreach; the agencies and the PRB should be involved in the continuing discussions.

  • Focusing more attention on data: Some participants suggested formation of a working group that includes members from agencies, data centers, and the science community. Participants noted that early leadership by the United States in



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 35
International Polar Year 2007–2008: Report of the Implementation Workshop 5 NEXT STEPS This session was moderated by Mr. Phil Smith, the former Executive Officer of the National Research Council (NRC). The discussion noted that although the start of the IPY is still three years away, planning must continue at a quick pace in order for the United States to be fully prepared. Much remains to be done to articulate a clear interagency science plan, create opportunities for scientists to propose concrete activities, develop funding mechanisms, develop international partnerships, and ensure provision of the necessary logistics and infrastructure. The next steps highlighted at the workshop include: Continuing dissemination information about IPY planning to the science community and facilitating their involvement. Developing mechanisms for input: Scientists and science teams are developing, and mechanisms need to be established for interfacing with these groups. Integrating IPY goals with goals of Climate Change Science Program, Group on Earth Observations, etc. Articulating and communicating the overall compelling science issues: This includes short-term and long-term benefits that matter to Congress and the public. To market the IPY, some participants suggested that we need to capitalize on inherent public interest, appeal to the pragmatic side of Congress, and ensure IPY is about good science. Determining how something becomes part of “IPY” and what it means to be an “IPY” activity. Increasing planning discussion for a wide variety of education and outreach activities: One possible idea would be to form a working group to continue the dialog about strategies for education and outreach; the agencies and the PRB should be involved in the continuing discussions. Focusing more attention on data: Some participants suggested formation of a working group that includes members from agencies, data centers, and the science community. Participants noted that early leadership by the United States in

OCR for page 35
International Polar Year 2007–2008: Report of the Implementation Workshop data management issues would help guide the eventual ICSU-WMO IPY plans in this area. Developing an IPY timeline: This timeline needs to list IPY tasks, with options for how various responsibilities could be filled. Advancing agency participation and coordination: The workshop is a good start, but continuing efforts are needed; particularly, mechanisms encouraging agencies to begin seeking ways to get IPY-related activities developed (such as interagency agreements, proposal processes, and budget discussions). Determining the future structure of national coordination: Many practical questions about process need to be answered and communicated. One solution discussed is that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) continue to develop links and coordination mechanisms for agencies to make progress on IPY planning. Determining the future structure of international coordination: International coordination is necessary and all key U.S. parties have to agree on how U.S. interests will be represented in the international realm. The PRB, as the body that represents the U.S. at SCAR and IASC, can continue to play an important role in developing IPY internationally. As the U.S. representative to WMO, NOAA can also provide guidance. POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF THE IPY 2007-2008 The final session of the workshop, led by PRB Chair Dr. Robin Bell, discussed some possible outcomes of the IPY. Workshop participants identified outcomes that can be grouped into four categories: intellectual, societal, international, and agency/U.S. government. Results from this discussion are highlighted in Table 2. At the conclusion of the workshop Dr. Bell thanked all the IPY workshop participants for their participation, saying that the two days had been highly productive because of the superb contributions all had made to the discussions. TABLE 5.1 Potential Outcomes of the IPY 2007-2008 Intellectual • Creating a polar legacy for the next 50 years   ○ New data that is accessible to all interested persons and institutions   ○ Advances in scientific understanding   ○ Observational infrastructure for ongoing polar research • Understanding teleconnections and roles of polar processes in global climate/weather • Improving understanding of human impacts on polar regions • Advancing technology for polar science • Improving the breadth and number of interdisciplinary studies

OCR for page 35
International Polar Year 2007–2008: Report of the Implementation Workshop Societal • Improving data sharing and data management through creation of accessible metadata systems • Inspiring spirit of discovery • Improving understanding of processes of change, how society is influencing change, and how changes will affect society • Improving environmental predictions • Training next generation of engineers, scientists and leaders • Improving the lives of northern residents by advancing studies of human health • Enhancing management and safety of fisheries • Understanding implications of Arctic Basin ice retreat for shipping and economic development International • Fostering the continued peaceful use of the poles • Advancing international cooperation • Engaging new partners and additional nations to engage in polar science • Leveraging resources to enhance science through international scientific collaborations Agency/U.S. Government • Enhancing agency synergisms • Improving management of fisheries • Renewing existing infrastructure and developing new infrastructure • Strengthening U.S. position in the Arctic Council and Antarctic Treaty