National Academies Press: OpenBook

Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review (2017)

Chapter: 2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

2

Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions

The assessment committee was asked to consider how well the ICCGS report1 took into account actions already taken by GS in response to the priorities of the 2013 solar and space physics decadal survey.2 However, other than the creation of a Space Weather Research program (SWR) to span and integrate already existing core research areas, GS has not been able to respond effectively to survey priorities, which nearly all require an increased budget to implement. The portfolio review itself is the most responsive action taken so far by the GS to the survey priorities. The PRC recognized that important constraints limited its ability to respond fully to its charge and to judge the alignment of the program against the priorities recommended in the survey. The boundary conditions imposed on the ICCGS response to survey guidance, in terms of scope and budget guidance, are discussed here.

2.1 THE SCOPE OF THE GEOSPACE SECTION PORTFOLIO REVIEW

The GS portfolio is comprised of facilities, core and strategic science grants programs, and professional development programs. In Chapter 7 of the ICCGS,3 GS facilities were defined as being one of two types: Class 1 and Class 2. A Class 1 facility is defined as a major, complex facility at a single site. Class 1 facilities include ISRs and ancillary capabilities at Arecibo Observatory, Sondrestrom, Jicamarca, Millstone Hill, the Poker Flat ISR (PFISR), and the Resolute Bay ISR (RISR-N). Class 2 facilities are defined as more modest, diverse investments, and these include SuperDARN, AMPERE, SuperMAG,4 and the Community Coordinated Modeling Center (CCMC). The CRRL is also funded as a facility. The core grants programs are those in aeronomy (AER), magnetospheric physics (MAG), and solar-terrestrial science (STR). The strategic grants programs are Coupling, Energetics, and Dynamics of Atmospheric Regions (CEDAR), Geospace Environment Modeling (GEM), and the Solar, Heliospheric, and Interplanetary Environment (SHINE). Additional strategic investments are in SWM, CubeSats, and FDSS awards.

___________________

1 National Science Foundation (NSF), 2016, Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025, Geospace Section of the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Science, February 5, https://www.nsf.gov/geo/adgeo/geospace-review/geospace-portfolio-reviewfinal-rpt-2016.pdf.

2 National Research Council (NRC), 2013, Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

3 NSF, 2016, Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025, Chapter 7.

4 SuperDARN stands for Super Dual Auroral Radar Network. AMPERE stands for Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment. SuperMAG is not an acronym but describes a collaboration of ground-based magnetometers.

Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×

These components of the GS portfolio are summarized in Figure 3.1 from the ICCGS report, reproduced here as Figure 2.1a.

The scope of the portfolio review was confined to GS and did not occur within the context of a broader review of an NSF-AGS division portfolio. As summarized by ICCGS Section 8.1.1, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and its geospace laboratory—the High Altitude Observatory (HAO)—are responsible for scientific capabilities and programs that are of direct relevance to the GS portfolio. The NCAR Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL) is also relevant. NCAR falls administratively within a different NSF-AGS facilities section, and it was not included in the GS portfolio review. The PRC was aware of AGS facilities and programs relevant to the GS portfolio, and the PRC interviewed the HAO director. Additional NSF and AGS programs relevant to GS also fell outside the purview of the ICCGS. These included the following:

  • NSF-DOE partnership in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering,
  • Prediction of and Resilience against Extreme Events (PREEVENTS), and
  • Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Pathways into Geosciences (IUSE: GEOPATHS).

The NSF Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) and the AGS Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program were both discussed in ICCGS Chapter 4, as were GS FDSS awards. Only the latter fell within the ICCGS purview, however.

Finding: The PRC was charged to consider the NSF GS portfolio largely in isolation, without review of relevant facilities, programs, and activities within the wider AGS portfolio.

2.2 BUDGET GUIDANCE

The total FY2015 GS budget was $43.6 million. Facilities investments accounted for 38 percent of the total; the core grants program for 33 percent (AER, MAG, STR); and strategic grants investments (CEDAR, GEM, SHINE, CubeSats, and SWM) for 28 percent. GS budget trends are summarized in Figure 3.2 of the ICCGS report, reproduced here as Figure 2.1b.

NSF budget guidance for ICCGS was confined to one scenario: a flat budget from 2016-2025, with the only growth being that due to inflation. Hence, any new activities and programs would come at the cost of redirecting, curtailing, or terminating investments in existing facilities, programs, and activities. This was different than the assumption made by the decadal survey.

The ICCGS found analysis of the GS budget to be a challenge, stating that “teasing out objective GS budget trends from 1999 forward” was complicated by a number of factors, including the following:

  • The addition of new programs and facilities during this time;
  • Organizational changes within GS—the implementation of SWR, for example;
  • Evolution in the administration of specific programs and facilities; and
  • A lack of clarity between research funding and facility operations and management costs.

As the ICCGS commented, these factors conspired to provide “less than optimum transparency”5 into the GS budget, and knowledge of important background and context for certain budgetary decisions by GS were lost to a significant extent when key GS personnel recently retired. The ICCGS noted three interrelated budgetary trends,6 summarized here as follows:

___________________

5 NSF, 2016, Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025, p. 16.

6 Ibid., Section 3.3.

Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Image
FIGURE 2.1 (a) The GS budget breakdown for FY2015; (b) the GS budget since 1999 and projected through 2018 shown in FY2015 dollars. Note that the three lower color bands in (b) correspond to the three core elements in (a)—that is, solar terrestrial research maps to STR and SHINE; magnetospheric physics maps to MAG plus GEM; and aeronomy maps to AER plus CEDAR. The space weather research program (SWR) was created from the combination of existing program elements as shown in (a). NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix E.
SOURCE: National Science Foundation, 2016, Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025, Geospace Section of the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Science, February 5, https://www.nsf.gov/geo/adgeo/geospacereview/geospace-portfolio-review-final-rpt-2016.pdf, (a) Figure 3.1, p. 11; (b) Figure 3.2, p. 16.
Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
  1. The GS budget has been flat for a decade (FY2015 dollars), discounting the 1-year augmentation of funds due to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009. GS added new programs and facilities during this time without terminating existing facilities or programs.
  2. Core and targeted grants funding have, as a consequence, been eroding. In past years, funding for grants and for facilities was relatively distinct. With the emergence of Class 2 facilities, which were not in the GS facilities budget, this distinction has been blurred.
  3. While there has been a modest increase in the GS facilities budget, it has not kept up with the increase in the number of Class 1 and 2 facilities at a rate sufficient to maintain state-of-the-art technical and scientific capabilities.

The ICCGS notes that these trends are “problematic for achieving leading-edge science in the next decade.”7 This is not a new development, however. The GS is expected to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of the scientific community as well as societal demands with a budget that, if the guidance holds until 2025, will have been flat for more than two decades.

Although the decadal survey identified priorities for NSF and geospace science, it did not specify funding levels needed to address those priorities. ICCGS estimates that being fully responsive to survey priorities would require additional expenditures of $11 million annually (ICCGS Section 3.2). The most significant component of the new expenditures would be implementation of the survey priority for a midscale projects budget line, estimated by the ICCGS to be at least $5 million to $6 million annually (see Section 5.2.1 below). In the absence of any such augmentation, survey priorities must be addressed within the flat budget envelope.

Finding: The ICCGS report estimates that an augmentation of $11 million, or 25 percent, is needed to fully address decadal survey priorities. However, the PRC was asked to respond to its charge under one budget scenario: a flat budget from 2016-2025 with adjustments for inflation.

__________________

7 Ibid., p. 17.

Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"2 Portfolio Review Boundary Conditions." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24666.
×
Page 14
Next: 3 The Geospace Section Portfolio in Context »
Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

At the request of the Advisory Committee for Geosciences of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a review of the Geospace Section of the NSF Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences was undertaken in 2015. The Portfolio Review Committee was charged with reviewing the portfolio of facilities, research programs, and activities funded by Geospace Section and to recommend critical capabilities and the balance of investments needed to enable the science program articulated in the 2013 NRC decadal survey Solar and Space Physics: A Science for a Technological Society. The Portfolio Review Committee's report Investments in Critical Capabilities for Geospace Science 2016 to 2025 (ICCGS) was accepted by the Advisory Committee for Geosciences in April 2016.

Assessment of the National Science Foundation's 2015 Geospace Portfolio Review provides an independent assessment of the ICCGS report. This publication assesses how well the ICCGS provides a clear set of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for Geospace Section that align with the science priorities of the NRC decadal survey, and adequately take into account issues such as the current budget outlook and the science needs of the community. Additionally, this study makes recommendations focused on options and considerations for NSF's implementation of the ICCGS recommendations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!