CHART: Charting the
Future Course of Scientific Ocean Drilling
MODERATORS:
Andy Fisher, Dale Sawyer and Gabe Filippelli
Key
question: Given the specification of high-priority scientific goals (in
the other Discussion Forums), how can the IODP community position a renewed
program so as to maximize opportunities to attain these goals, maintain and
expand community enthusiasm for the program, and secure necessary financial and
other support in an increasingly challenging funding environment?
This
question can be broken down into sub-questions, perhaps each of these being a
separate thread of discussion:
(1)
With what scientific and technical programs should IODP be coordinating? How
can this coordination help to identify related technical and scientific goals
and other areas of mutual interest? Is there a way for IODP and related
programs to leverage scarce resources through cooperative projects?
(2)
How can IODP have a higher profile with regard to Broader Impacts, as defined
by the U.S. National Science Foundation? [Link here to the latest document from
NSF showing examples of Broader Impacts.] Should IODP give priority to projects
and programs that have strong societal relevance? What metrics might be used to
assess this? Should more IODP resources be spent on education and outreach
programs? NASA spends about 10% of its budget on E&O, whereas historically
NSF-funded research projects have spent considerably less.
(3)
What can IODP do to increase interest in participation within scientific
disciplines that have not previously been active in scientific ocean drilling?
What can IODP do to increase participation by K-12 students and/or
undergraduate researchers? What can IODP do to involve non-scientists in
drilling activities? What can IODP do to enhance diversity in IODP
participation?
(4)
How should the IODP planning structure be configured so as to be responsive to
community priorities, including follow-through from year to year to make sure
that high-priority programs are completed?
(5)
There has often been a focus in the past by the implementing organizations on
logistical achievement, rather than scientific achievement (e.g., kilometers of
core or days at sea rather than whether or not key questions were answered).
What kinds of community oversight are needed to make sure that contractors
fulfill their scientific obligations and remain focused on activities
of greatest importance to the community?
(6)
Given limited resources and access to vessels, even if the program were fully
funded, there are many more proposals in the system than can possibly be
drilled. But the program needs to provide opportunities for new and exciting
ideas to result in drilling activity. How should the program treat the standing
crop of proposals and future proposals that may be submitted, if it is unlikely
that some of these will ever be scheduled? Show more proposals be rejected
outright? Should all proposals be considered "rejected" if they are
not drilling within some time after initial submission, requiring updating and
rejustification? Should the program stop soliciting new proposals after a
sufficient number of excellent proposals are received so as to fill out the
anticipated drilling schedule?
(7)
How can a renewed IODP both secure a large share of available scientific
funding, and help to generate new funding that would otherwise not be available
to the community? Are there additional funding partners who could be convinced
to participate, perhaps on the basis of supporting specific projects of
interest?