[DIALOGnews] Resend: Charting a path for interdisciplinary research and ACTION ITEM for US residents

[Weiler, C. Susan]

Dear all,

This is an update for the message I sent out last week. I erred on Tim 
Killeen's name..... I have corrected the text below. I am resending the 
entire message, because I believe this is important enough to say 
twice. Hopefully a few of you who might have been on the verge of 
contacting NSF about serving as a reviewer, or writing to your senator 
or congress member will make the 'plunge' into activism on this 
important topic.

Best, Sue

***********************************************************


Dear Recent PhD graduates and former DIALOG Symposium Participants,

I was at a recent meeting for NSF PIs funded through the Biocomplexity 
in the Environment program. It was an inspiring and also discouraging 
meeting -- inspiring because we clearly have the knowledge and 
equipment necessary to generate greater understanding of Earth systems 
and human impacts. Furthermore, the scientific community is committed 
to making this knowledge available to managers and policy makers, and 
we are quickly learning how better to accomplish this. Still, it was 
discouraging to see how little funding is available to undertake the 
enormous tasks before us. The NSF budget is not keeping pace with the 
potential of new technologies and our human resources. We must hope 
that the current funding situation is an insignificant dip on the way 
to developing an effective plan to address environmental issues and not 
a portent of the future! I think NCAR Director and incoming AGU 
President Timothy L. Killeen summed it up best:
"Regardless of the funding, this is what our life is going to be about
continuing into the future.... What we do in this generation
will determine the destiny of life on our planet."
Timothy L. Killeen, Closing Plenary Address
2005 NSF Biocomplexity in the Environment Awardees Meeting

Given the limited funds, NSF Director Arden Bement is doing his best to 
direct funds to Core Programs (by reducing the number and scope of 
special initiatives) and facilitate research that extends beyond 
traditional disciplinary boundaries. Directors and program officers are 
working together to change the NSF infrastructure to meet the growing 
need for interdisciplinary research.  I was very encouraged by this 
commitment to funding across programs -- but this cannot be done 
without your help! NSF depends on the external community to review 
proposals and recommend funding. I know you know, interdisciplinary 
proposals are difficult to review since the scope of the work is likely 
extend beyond the expertise of individual reviewers. With today's 
funding, even a slight question can make the difference between funding 
and rejection. Still, we often talk about the need to "critically" 
review proposals -- the first definition of critical in my dictionary 
is "inclined to judge severely". At the same time, we should not 
"knit-pick". We should be sure to weigh and comment on quality, risk, 
and potential benefit -- how much can we gain from the proposed work, 
and is that potential worth the investment. While I have no statistics 
to back it up, I expect that reviewers with a strictly disciplinary 
focus are more likely than interdisciplinary scientists to criticize 
work that extends beyond their disciplinary expertise, and will be less 
likely to see the benefits along with the risks. We don't have to stop 
being critical -- we do need to underscore the importance of 
interdisciplinary research and strive to put our concerns in 
perspective and make constructive suggestions for improvement. If you 
think that a potential PI can modify the work plan without having to go 
through the exercise of resubmitting a revised proposal, be sure you 
state this clearly in the review.

We must get involved in the review system to support our colleagues and 
the important science that often falls in the cracks between 
disciplines. If you are not already on NSF's review list, please 
contact the officer in charge of the program(s) of interest to you and 
let them know you are available.

Equally important, NOW is a good time to WRITE YOUR CONGRESS MEMBERS 
(and/or NSF Director Arden Bement, abement at nsf.gov). Congress will 
return from recess next week and continue working towards a
final budget resolution, so time is of the essence.

The letter below is a "template draft" developed by the Board on Oceans 
and Atmosphere (BOA) Executive Committee and the Consortium for 
Oceanographic Research and Education (CORE). Send it to your
representative and senators urging them to contact their leadership in 
favor of increasing the overall FY 2006 budget allocation for NSF, 
NASA, NOAA, ONR and/or any other Federal agency that funds your 
research.

Please personalize and tailor the letter to fit your situation as a new 
or continuing member of the research community.

It is most effective to fax or email your letter and follow up with a 
phone call to the appropriate legislative assistant in the 
congressional offices. Phone and fax numbers and email addresses for 
all congressional offices is
available at
http://capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/officials/
Again, Arden Bement's e-mail is abement at nsf.gov

***************************************
DRAFT:

March 31, 2005

Dear Senator or Congressman [last name]:

I am writing to urge you to contact the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Appropriations Committee and urge them to provide a robust 302(b) 
allocation for scientific research.  It is crucial to the nation’s 
economic growth and welfare that the federal science agencies receive  
the resources necessary to support the cutting-edge research at NASA, 
the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration. and other Federal agencies.

[INSERT A COUPLE OF SENTENCES HERE DESCRIBING WHY YOU THINK IT IS 
IMPERATIVE TO FUND RESEARCH NOW. CONSIDER WHAT IT WILL MEAN TO THE 
WORLD, THE U.S., YOUR INSTITUTION AND YOU PERSONALLY IF RESEARCH FUNDS 
DO NOT KEEP PACE WITH THE RESEARCH NEEDS OF THIS COUNTRY.

The Committee has the opportunity to significantly advance the nation’s 
understanding of the environment.

Thank you again for considering my concerns.  I understand the 
appropriations committee has a number of competing priorities to 
consider when formulating the 302(b) allocations and your input into 
its allocation process is essential to ensure that science is 
protected.  I know that you share my belief that the long-term payoff 
from investments in the science agencies in [House: SSJC; Senate: CJS] 
is one of the wisest investments of taxpayers funding.   I look forward 
to working with you on this important issue.

Sincerely,

***************************************

**********
C. Susan Weiler, Ph.D.          
Office for Earth System Studies    Tel:   509-527-5948          
Whitman College                          Fax:  509-527-5961
Walla Walla, WA 99362
    weiler at whitman.edu    
    Programs for Recent PhDs                 http://aslo.org/phd.html
    DIALOG poster        http://www.aslo.org/phd/dialogposter.pdf
    DISCCRS poster       http://www.aslo.org/phd/disccrsposter.pdf 
Workshop Report, Meeting the Needs of Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Graduates 
in a Changing Global Environment
http://marcus.whitman.edu/~weilercs/biocomplexity/              
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 7687 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://aslo.org/pipermail/dialognews/attachments/20050406/87608989/attachment.bin