National Academies Press: OpenBook

Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop (2007)

Chapter: Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy

« Previous: Appendix B Participant Biographies
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×

C
Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology

Jon Morse

Physical Sciences and Engineering

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office of the President

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×

Beneficial Aspects of NRC Decadal Surveys

  • Community-based documents that provide consensus views of frontier science opportunities for maintaining the nation’s scientific leadership

  • Provides for each field a single, well-respected source for community priorities and the scientific motivations to the agencies, OMB, OSTP, and the Congress

  • Limits the range of activities to consider for funding

    • Cost estimates, technical risk assessments, and technology roadmaps aid in budget planning

Issues and Concerns with NRC Decadal Surveys

  • Prioritizing specific projects can become static and inflexible, making it nearly impossible to account for project setbacks, new discoveries, changing budgetary circumstances, etc.

  • Technical risks are often not well known or stated clearly

  • Cost estimates have often been inaccurate

    • Project cost estimates are too low and do not reflect total life-cycle costs

  • Recommended project portfolios cannot fit in any realistic budget scenario (unrealistic expectations)

    • Small, medium, and large projects are not compared

    • Surveys often do not address how projects should be phased, individually or relative to one another

  • Surveys usually assume only growth in the number and scale of facilities and missions and do not identify offsets in the existing portfolios to enable new initiatives

What Is Most Useful for Making Decisions?

  • Frame the discussion by identifying the key science questions

    • Focus on what you want to do, not on what you want to build

    • Discuss the breadth and depth of the science (e.g., impact on our understanding of fundamental processes, impact on related fields and interdisciplinary research, etc.)

  • Explain what measurements and capabilities are needed to answer each question

  • Discuss the complementary nature of initiatives, relative phasing (domestic and international context)

    • How do various past, present, and future measurements and facilities work together to answer the questions?

    • What roles do/could private, interagency, and international partnerships play?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×
  • Reporting by capabilities (e.g., wavelength range and in situ vs. remote sensing) is not useful for policy and budget planning

Suggested Improvements

  • Establish science and project priorities in the broad context of past, present, and future projects and changing conditions

  • New initiatives, upgrades and/or recapitalizations

  • Establish relative priority amongst new initiatives, projects currently under development (e.g., from previous surveys), operating projects, R&A, PI-led projects, and technology/R&D investment needs

  • Prioritize across all initiatives vs. grouping into small, medium, large. That is, remove ambiguities about what is meant by “a balanced program”

  • Explain the associated risks (technical, dependencies on other projects)

    • Assume that large projects (>$1 billion) will need international support

  • Provide tables that summarize key information about science and projects

  • Provide timeline/phasing charts and diagrams for project portfolios under various budget scenarios

  • Consider recruiting nonspecialists or even nonscientists for committees to aid in communicating societal benefits (e.g., interdisciplinary aspects, education, workforce training, public outreach)

Managing Expectations

  • Acknowledge stewardship role in taxpayer investment

  • Identify highest priority activities but within a framework that allows flexibility to react to new scientific opportunities

  • Use order-of-magnitude life-cycle cost estimates instead of specific (often underestimated) construction costs or costs by decade

  • Explain how circumstances (e.g., project overruns, changing budget forecasts, phasing with other projects, new discoveries) would change priorities

  • Consider multiple realistic budget profiles and what science various profiles would buy

    • Work with agencies, OMB, Congress to define constraints

    • Macrobudgetary pressures are expected to increase during the next decade, so flat budget projections may actually be optimistic

    • Also need to consider project terminations that allow new initiatives to move forward (part of Decadal Survey or subsequent Senior Review process)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C Excerpts from Presentation by Jon Morse, Office of Science and Technology Policy." National Research Council. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11894.
×
Page 64
Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Workshop on Decadal Science Strategy Surveys was held on November 14-16, 2006, to promote discussions of the use of National Research Council (NRC) decadal surveys for developing and implementing scientific priorities, to review lessons learned from the most recent surveys, and to identify potential approaches for future surveys that can enhance their realism, utility, and endurance.

The workshop involved approximately 60 participants from academia, industry, government, and the NRC. This report summarizes the workshop presentations, panel discussions, and general discussions on the use of decadal surveys for developing and implementing scientific priorities in astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, solar and space physics, and Earth science. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop summarizes the evnts of the three day workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!