not they participate in major programs. Nearly all existing major programs had initial workshops or other planning activities funded, at least in part, by NSF/OCE. These two facts point out the significant role NSF/OCE plays in funding and nurturing ocean science in this country.

There are strong arguments for funding intermediate-size programs and continuing to fund major oceanographic programs. Furthermore, the scientific research conducted by individual investigators in the core oceanographic disciplines must also be healthy for this field to prosper. These two goals need not be mutually exclusive—either one obtained to the detriment of the other. Their pursuit should include complementary activities that strengthen the overall national and international program of ocean science. The pressure to carry out interdisciplinary research through multi-investigator projects will continue to increase as ocean science becomes more complex and as concern for environmental and societal rewards continues to grow. Without major oceanographic programs the ocean science community would lose the ability to address large-scale scientific issues in a systematic manner and a powerful argument for increased funding and infrastructure enhancements, while gaining little in terms of improving the overall proposal success rate within NSF/OCE.

In the future, the federal agencies that fund basic ocean research, especially NSF/OCE, need to continue to find ways to support a full spectrum of projects including major oceanographic programs, intermediate-size programs, and small group or single investigator projects, while maintaining a healthy, dynamic balance among them. A key reason why NSF/OCE has been a good home for major oceanographic programs since IDOE is that the agency is able to administer basic research and to ''be flexible in the design and management of oceanographic research aimed at broad social goals" (Jennings and King, 1980). Since the renewal of major ocean programs, NSF/OCE Program Management has had significant flexibility to make decisions about how and when programs should be funded and set priorities for funding programs and proposals. The preceding chapters suggest that there are opportunities for some course corrections.

Lessons Learned

Major programs have affected the size and composition of the research fleet, and provided impetus for the development of technology and facilities used by the wider oceanographic community. The programs have contributed to a range of technological developments, facilities, and standardization of sampling techniques. Similar to what is done periodically for the research fleet, a thorough review of the other facilities, including procedures for establishing and maintaining them, is necessary to set priorities for support of the facilities used by the wider oceanographic committee. The very long lead times needed for fleet and facilities development require that the oceanographic community be developing



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