Click for next page ( 68

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
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 67
Assessment of Programs in Space Biology and Medicine 1991 Appendix Guidelines for Assessment Reports for Standing Committees of the Space Studies Board So that the Space Studies Board (SSB) can have an ongoing assessment of the status of space science and applications research recommended in its various reports, each of the standing committees (Space Biology and Medicine, Space Astronomy and Astrophysics, Solar and Space Physics, Planetary and Lunar Exploration, Microgravity Research, and Earth Studies) is requested to provide an assessment of the way in which recommendations in the existing strategy and other reports are being implemented by the appropriate federal agencies. This assessment will be conducted every three years beginning in 1990-91. In the interim years, the committee chairpersons will provide a formal assessment report to the SSB only. The form of report presentation, written or oral, is at the discretion of the committee. Should the SSB determine that the reports' contents or format needs to be changed, the SSB will provide the committees with the necessary guidelines to make the appropriate modifications. A secondary objective of these assessments is for the committees to examine their existing strategies to determine if any changes are necessary and to evaluate the time scale on which the strategies need to be updated. This report is to be submitted to the SSB for review no later than March 31 of the pertinent year. Its length should be determined by the committee based on its individual needs. Each report should include an executive summary, not to exceed 15 pages. The audience for these reports is NASA, the space research community, Congress, and relevant Executive Branch offices such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Space Council. These reports will be published separately, as they become available. In addition, the SSB may choose to summarize and compile all of the reports into a single volume providing an overall assessment of the state of space research on a regular basis.

OCR for page 67
Each report should contain, at a minimum, the following features: I. Introduction A. Description of principal areas/disciplines within committee's purview. B. Listing of principal SSB reports pertaining to the respective disciplines (should include title, name of authoring committee, date of publication). SSB or committee letter reports that contain information relevant to issues examined in the annual report should also be included. [In some cases, there may be non- SSB NRC reports for which the committee has oversight responsibility. In these cases, they too should be listed.] This listing may be attached as an appendix. C. Identification of principal users/implementors of existing reports (within NASA). D. Identification of potential users/implementors of existing reports (outside of NASA). II. Status of the Discipline A. Discussion of major scientific goals/objectives in existing reports, and description of progress to date in achieving these goals/objectives. "Progress" includes any activity specifically pertaining to major scientific objectives, i.e., inclusion in a strategic plan, Announcements of Opportunity, cooperative agreements, budget line-items, inclusion on STS/ELV flight manifest, Phase A, B, etc., studies. B. Identification of major scientific goals/objectives in existing reports in which no progress (see above) has been made. This discussion should include the committee's assessment of why no progress has been made in addressing scientific goals/objectives (e.g., budget constraints, lack of flight opportunities, technology limitations, instrument/facility availability, management/policy decisions, and so on). It should also address, if applicable, where these goals or objectives fall in the committee's overall priorities for the discipline as a whole. If relevant or possible, the committee should include some guidance or recommendations for achieving these goals and objectives. For example, the committee might recommend how relevant federal agencies (other than NASA) could address these goals and objectives under existing programs, how interagency and/or international cooperative agreements might be exploited; and

OCR for page 67
so on. C. Identification and discussion of major policy and program issues raised in existing reports and the U.S. government's and/or NASA's response. III. Conclusions This report is complete.