Future Directions for the National Science Foundation's Arctic Natural Sciences Program (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Mission and Guiding Principles
4 Mission and Guiding Principles
Pages 29-39
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 29... ...
After studying the ANS program and the OPP context, the committee offers the following as a mission statement for the program: The mission of the Arctic Natural Sciences program is to fund cutting-edge research dealing with any aspect of the Arctic's atmospheric, terrestrial, and marine systems. The program focuses on proposals that contribute to understanding and predicting the unique elements and processes that are part of the arctic environment.
|
From page 30... ...
The committee began by examining the general nature of the proposals considered and funded in the past and by considering the mission statements of ANS and other NSF programs that include elements of arctic natural science. The committee then brainstormed an extensive list of possible criteria, refined and reduced the list, and reached consensus on the most important or first level guidelines.
|
From page 31... ...
Some of the other guidelines openness to proposals that require extensive logistics or require major synthesis of data or theories or that investigate bipolar processes are included because the committee believes the ANS program should be welcoming of such proposals as they might not be easy to place in other, related NSF programs. We do not mean to imply that other NSF programs are not open to newcomers or do not support innovative research; rather, our point is that the ANS program' s breadth can be seen as a strength and taken advantage of to facilitate these kinds of activities.
|
From page 32... ...
ANS should be seen as the broad home for natural science research in the Arctic, but it is essential that program managers understand the full range of arctic research activities that are occurring elsewhere within the NSF structure and coordinate with those activities. Given the three main components of the Arctic Sciences Section ANS, ARCSS, and Arctic Social Sciences the committee understands why ANS has had the appearance of "if a proposal does not belong in ARCSS, it must belong in ANS." While this can create some confusion among investigators, it seems an inevitable outgrowth of the existing organizational structure and may not be a serious enough problem to require major organizational change.
|
From page 33... ...
· Atmospheric systems would include studies of the troposphere, stratosphere, ionosphere, and space physics, including physical and chemical studies ranging from the Earth surface to the sun, surface exchange processes, and interactions between the biosphere and atmosphere. · Terrestrial systems would include studies of terrestrial biology and ecology, glaciology (including glaciers, ice sheets, snow, and permafrost)
|
From page 34... ...
This model is based on the assumption that ANS is large and complex and, in the committee's opinion, would best be served by a team of three staff (e.g., 3As of July 1998, the ANS program has three full-time staff, including its original temporary position and two permanent positions transferred in from the Antarctic sciences section, but this is likely to change. The personnel changes that occurred during this study are indicative of the fact that oPP management is aware of the need for change and seeking solutions.
|
From page 35... ...
When possible, the ANS program managers should take better advantage of the wide variety of expertise that exists elsewhere in OPP and across NSF as a whole. A key addition to the proposal evaluation process would be the use of a multidisciplinary panel convened specifically to consider the ANS proposals from both a quality perspective and for input on research priorities.
|
From page 36... ...
Research priorities are dynamic and shorter-term; they guide year-to-year activities and allow programs to respond to newly identified needs, take advantage of special opportunities, and build upon past research in an integrated fashion. Research priorities change and are often quite focused; mission should remain relatively stable and have a broad focus.
|
From page 37... ...
We further believe that the review panels, Arctic Affiliates, and other existing sources of expertise can play roles in helping ANS managers identify areas of important research and maintain a dynamic balance between the needs in the three scientific spheres. Priority setting should not be a one-time event but a flexible process, complete with periodic evaluations and modifications.
|
From page 38... ...
This is a disadvantage relative to work in the Antarctic where the logistics costs are covered separately by the Polar Research Support Section. Therefore, even though the science budgets of the Arctic and Antarctic Sections appear equal size, a significantly smaller share of the Arctic budget is actually available for science.
|
From page 39... ...
Because a number of federal agencies have roles in the Arctic, certainly there are other opportunities to share resources ships, aircraft, shore stations, and technology in ways that give researchers logistical support. Potential partners who might share logistics resources include the Forest Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, and various Alaska state agencies.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.