Comments to NOAA's Science Advisory Board April 5, 2000 by Amy Mathews-Amos, Program Director Marine Conservation Biology Institute Good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Science Advisory Board. I'm Amy Mathews-Amos, Program Director for Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI). MCBI is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the science of marine conservation biology - the multidisciplinary science of protecting, restoring, and sustainably using life in the sea. We believe that increasing our understanding of the marine environment is key to solving the growing list of marine conservation problems in the world today. In past comments to the Science Advisory Board, MCBI's President Elliott Norse and I have discussed how too much needed marine conservation biology research falls through the federal cracks. That is, while NOAA conducts important work on fisheries, endangered species, and other issues, much of this research is narrowly focused. Conversely, the National Science Foundation (NSF) traditionally has supported the vast majority of basic research in a wide range of fields, including many relevant to the marine environment, but has not viewed its mission as supporting research to solve conservation and management problems. Moreover, its traditional focus on single disciplines has not promoted new multidisciplinary fields like marine conservation biology. But exciting opportunities are now emerging in the arena of federally-funded research, and MCBI believes that NOAA needs to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity. Most significantly, fundamental changes are underway at NSF with the release of the National Science Board's report Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation. This report clearly makes environmental research, education, and scientific assessment "one of the highest priorities of the National Science Foundation." It calls for a tripling of the investment in the environmental portfolio at NSF over the next 5 years, with increases in interdisciplinary, disciplinary and long-term research, and enhancing infrastructure for environmental observations, including a suite of environmental research and education hubs. The report identifies greater partnerships and interagency coordination as key to achieving these goals. NSF is now beginning to implement these (and other) far reaching recommendations, establishing an organizational structure to encourage interdisciplinary environmental research and identifying its role in the environmental arena. MCBI's message to NOAA is: get in on the ground floor. Clearly NOAA has a major role to play in addressing environmental topics in the marine realm. By partnering closely with NSF, NOAA now has an opportunity to fill in those gaps from the past, and leverage NSF's expertise and interest to help NOAA achieve its goals in environmental stewardship. The synergy of a NSF now focusing on interdisciplinary environmental topics combined with NOAA's specialty in this area could significantly enhance the amount of high quality research on marine conservation topics. Indeed, some of the most exciting and valuable environmental research currently done by either NOAA or NSF has occurred through partnerships in which these and other agencies work together, and that take a multidisciplinary approach to understanding a problem. These include ECOHAB which examines physical, biological, and chemical oceanographic questions critical to management of marine life threatened by harmful algal blooms, GLOBEC, which examines how physical factors affect abundances and productivity of key marine animal species, and the Global Climate Change Research Program. But to be successful this effort will require substantial coordination between NOAA and NSF about research priorities and the appropriate roles of each agency. Currently, NSF has devoted only 1/3 of one person's time to interagency coordination. I fear that with the challenge of getting their own house in order to implement this significant organizational change, outreach to federal partners has not yet become a priority. I urge NOAA not to wait to be approached by NSF, but to work through appropriate channels to begin the process of collaboration as quickly as possible. One key first step might be a joint effort to identify research priorities in marine conservation biology to form the basis for future funding decisions. MCBI is happy to work with NOAA and NSF to organize a workshop to do so, and include some of the best thinkers in the field. Regardless, this fundamental change at NSF is highly relevant to NOAA's mission of environmental stewardship and provides a tremendous opportunity to advance scientific understanding in marine conservation biology. MCBI urges NOAA to take advantage of it to the fullest and we look forward to helping in any way we can. Thank you for listening. I'm happy to answer any questions, and have copies of the National Science Board report for anyone who is interested.