Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Earth Science and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (2007)

Exploring Organic Environments in the Solar System (Space Studies Board [SSB] with the Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, 2007)

A Performance Assessment of NASA’s Astrophysics Program (SSB with the Board on Physics and Astronomy, 2007)

An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs (2006)

Assessment of NASA’s Mars Architecture 2007-2016 (2006)

Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Venus Missions: Letter Report (2006)

Distributed Arrays of Small Instruments for Solar-Terrestrial Research: Report of a Workshop (2006)

Issues Affecting the Future of the U.S. Space Science and Engineering Workforce (SSB with the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board [ASEB], 2006)

Review of NASA’s 2006 Draft Science Plan: Letter Report (2006)

The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon—Interim Report (2006)

Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space Exploration (2006)

The Astrophysical Context of Life (SSB with the Board on Life Sciences, 2005)

Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation (2005)

Extending the Effective Lifetimes of Earth Observing Research Missions (2005)

Preventing the Forward Contamination of Mars (2005)

Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences (2005)

Priorities in Space Science Enabled by Nuclear Power and Propulsion (SSB with ASEB, 2005)

Review of Goals and Plans for NASA’s Space and Earth Sciences (2005)

Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station (2005)

Science in NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration (2005)

Limited copies of these reports are available free of charge from

Space Studies Board

National Research Council

The Keck Center of the National Academies

500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001

(202) 334-3477/ssb@nas.edu

www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/ssb.html

National Research Council (NRC) decadal science strategy surveys provide decade-long retrospective and forward-looking assessments of the status of and outlook for a research field, and they provide broadly based recommendations for explicit scientific and programmatic priorities for future investments in the field. While these surveys have been widely successful, implementation problems have been encountered as the relevant government agencies and the scientific community try to follow the advice contained in them. These problems, which have been due to a combination of fiscal, technical, programmatic, and policy factors, suggest that the approach to future decadal surveys needs to be carefully examined and possibly modified or improved.

Consequently, the Space Studies Board concluded that it would be timely and important to bring members of the research community and representatives of relevant government offices together to discuss the use of NRC decadal surveys for developing and implementing scientific priorities, to review and discuss lessons learned from the most recent surveys, and to identify approaches that could enhance the realism, utility, and endurance of future surveys.

A public workshop was conducted on November 14-16, 2006, at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California, to address these issues. A workshop planning committee, whose members were drawn from the membership of the Space Studies Board, developed an agenda for the workshop and selected and invited workshop participants. The workshop featured presentations, panel discussions, and general discussions on the use of NRC decadal surveys for developing and implementing scientific priorities in astronomy and astrophysics, planetary science, solar and space physics, and Earth science. The workshop

agenda is presented in Appendix A, and short biographies of the approximately 60 participants from academia, industry, government, and the NRC are presented in Appendix B.

This workshop report, prepared by the workshop rapporteur, Jack D. Fellows, with the assistance of NRC staff member Joseph Alexander, is intended to be a summary of what occurred at the workshop. The Space Studies Board intends for the report to stimulate discussion about future decadal surveys all across the scientific community, the relevant federal agencies, and Congress and to be useful to the NRC as the next rounds of decadal surveys are planned and organized.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the statements presented in the report nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by William W. Hoover, independent consultant (U.S. Air Force, retired). Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authors and the institution.

This page intentionally left blank.