proposals submitted as part of major oceanographic programs versus unsolicited proposals will continue to impact collegiality. NSF/OCE and the major programs themselves should make every effort to correct any widely-held misconceptions. Requests made of NSF/OCE by the last four Committees of Visitors suggest that these thorough and periodic reviews of NSF/OCE, and the issues facing the ocean science community, benefit from timely access to information about resource allocation. Allocation decisions should be based on wide input from the community and the basis for decisions should be set forth clearly to the scientific community. Therefore, NSF/OCE should make a concerted effort to continue to (or begin to) track key metrics regarding the funding for core and major oceanographic programs, including:
In addition, as discussed previously, NSF should seek mechanisms to track the "fate" of these students during their professional careers (perhaps through the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education).
By providing the community with timely access to data and information regarding allocation decisions, misperceptions can be avoided and the impact of funding pressures minimized. One such perception is that of a two-tiered system, consisting of scientists who participate in the major oceanographic programs and those who do not. This view reflects, to some degree, the nature of how large research programs tend to evolve. Figure 4-3 depicts involvement in large programs by plotting three components of the population of investigators involved in WOCE. In WOCE, as is probably the case with most large programs initiated