1 / 8

Polar Research Support Section Committee of Visitors Recommendations

This report presents the recommendations of the Committee of Visitors (COV) for the Polar Research Support Section (PRSS) to improve the processes used in establishing priorities, appropriateness of funding for scientific needs and infrastructure, and the effective planning and implementation of science projects to achieve research goals.

nadineh
Download Presentation

Polar Research Support Section Committee of Visitors Recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Polar Research Support SectionCommittee of Visitors Recommendations Erick Chiang Section Head Polar Research Support Section Office of Polar Programs

  2. PRSS COV Recommendations • Focus on three questions of seven posed to the COV and the resulting recommendations • 1) Have the processes used to establish priorities captured long term needs and priorities • 2) Has ORSS funding for support of scientific needs and investment in infrastructure been appropriate • 3) Does PRSS plan and implement science projects effectively to achieve research goals

  3. COV RecommendationsQuestion 1 1.1 Sponsor w/Antarctic Science workshop(s) to elicit Grand Challenges in Antarctic Science 1.2 Become more efficient and accurate in providing timely support cost estimates and innovative in enabling more complex projects 1.3 Take a comprehensive “South of 60” look at other opportunities for infrastructure development to encourage proposals that stretch the bounds of current structure 1.4 Work w/Antarctic Science to optimize USAP participation in IPY

  4. OPP Response – Question 1 • OPP concurs w/importance of assessing future directions with the community and then reacting to them; Examples – WAIS; Cape Roberts/ANDRILL; SOAR; large field camps; GLOBEC • Additional workshops would be very useful in setting future directions • Insure that past practice does not preclude exloration of new scientific frontiers that require different logistics and/or infrastructure • OPP is building flexibility into the budgeting and resource allocation processes to enable longer range planning and trade-offs

  5. COV Recommendations–Question 2 • 2.1 Separate items in the PRSS budget that directly supports science vs those that do not • 2.2 Provide Science PMs with a concrete estimate of funds available for project support, at the time of proposal evaluation

  6. OPP Response – Question 2 • OPP will institute a joint planning process to complement the planning done in each section • In the interim PMs will be provided with “resource baskets” which allows them to allocate available resources and to consider trade-offs • The new process indentifies and tracks O&M costs distinct from infrastructure and science project costs • Some resources however support a wide variety of infrastructure and science needs

  7. COV Recommendations – Question 3 • 3.3 Develop a mechanism that delivers an accurate and timely workup of the full costs of

  8. OPP Response – Question 3 • Antarctic Science and PRSS are working to implement a system to allow for improved analysis of support needs for large projects • Includes detailed analysis and project planning • May require additional time as well a substantive involvement of PI’s prior to a final funding decision

More Related