Appendix E
Statement of Task

Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan

An ad hoc committee will conduct an independent review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's strategic plan for global change and climate change studies, giving attention also to the program's strategic planning process. This review will be carried out in two phases.


Phase I


In the first phase, the committee will review the discussion draft of the plan. The review will address the following questions about the draft plan as a whole:

  • Is the plan responsive to the nation's needs for information on climate change and global change, their potential implications, and comparisons of the potential effects of different response options?

  • Are the goals clear and appropriate?

  • Is there an appropriate balance (1) between short-term (2-5 years) and longer-term goals, (2) among substantive research areas, and (3) between research and non-research activities, such as observations, modeling, and communicating results?

  • Are mechanisms for coordinating and integrating issues that involve multiple disciplines and multiple agencies adequately described?

  • Does the plan adequately describe the roles of the public, private sector, academia, state/local governments, and international communities, and linkages among these communities? scientific community? Is the question format for driving the research program effective?

  • Does the written document describing the program effectively communicate with both stakeholders and the

The review also will address the following questions for each of the plan's major topical areas:

  • Does the plan reflect current scientific and technical understanding?

  • Are the specific objectives clear and appropriate?

  • Are expected results and deliverables (and their timelines) realistic given the available resources?

In its review, the committee will consider the scientific and stakeholder community comments at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's workshop and other comments received by the program during the public comment period. If time permits, the committee also will comment on any significant process issues related to the workshop that could affect how the program revises the draft plan.


The results of phase I will be provided in a report to be delivered no later than February 28, 2003.


Phase II


In the second phase, the committee will provide an overall assessment of the revised (final) plan, with an emphasis on how the plan has evolved in response to NRC and other community input. The committee also will address the following



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 84
Planning Climate and Global Change Research Appendix E Statement of Task Committee to Review the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan An ad hoc committee will conduct an independent review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's strategic plan for global change and climate change studies, giving attention also to the program's strategic planning process. This review will be carried out in two phases. Phase I In the first phase, the committee will review the discussion draft of the plan. The review will address the following questions about the draft plan as a whole: Is the plan responsive to the nation's needs for information on climate change and global change, their potential implications, and comparisons of the potential effects of different response options? Are the goals clear and appropriate? Is there an appropriate balance (1) between short-term (2-5 years) and longer-term goals, (2) among substantive research areas, and (3) between research and non-research activities, such as observations, modeling, and communicating results? Are mechanisms for coordinating and integrating issues that involve multiple disciplines and multiple agencies adequately described? Does the plan adequately describe the roles of the public, private sector, academia, state/local governments, and international communities, and linkages among these communities? scientific community? Is the question format for driving the research program effective? Does the written document describing the program effectively communicate with both stakeholders and the The review also will address the following questions for each of the plan's major topical areas: Does the plan reflect current scientific and technical understanding? Are the specific objectives clear and appropriate? Are expected results and deliverables (and their timelines) realistic given the available resources? In its review, the committee will consider the scientific and stakeholder community comments at the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's workshop and other comments received by the program during the public comment period. If time permits, the committee also will comment on any significant process issues related to the workshop that could affect how the program revises the draft plan. The results of phase I will be provided in a report to be delivered no later than February 28, 2003. Phase II In the second phase, the committee will provide an overall assessment of the revised (final) plan, with an emphasis on how the plan has evolved in response to NRC and other community input. The committee also will address the following

OCR for page 84
Planning Climate and Global Change Research questions related to the processes used to solicit and consider input from the scientific and stakeholder communities throughout the strategic planning process: Were the mechanisms for input from the scientific and stakeholder communities throughout the program's strategic planning process adequate? Did the format of the workshop promote the open exchange of ideas and suggestions for improvement? Was the process used to make decisions on potential changes to the draft plan clearly communicated to workshop participants and others who submitted comments during the public comment period? Was this process consistent with generally accepted practices for considering community input during public comment periods? What specific improvements should be reflected in future planning efforts for the program? The results of phase II will be provided in a report to be delivered to the program within 6 months after the revised (final) plan is published.