MINUTES
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee
(BERAC) Meeting
Office of Biological and Environmental Research
Office of Science
U.S. Department of Energy
DATE: December 11-12, 2000
LOCATION: American Geophysical
Union, Washington, D.C. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register.
PARTICIPANTS: A list of attendees
showing all BERAC members who were present, guests, and participating
Department of Energy officials and staff is attached.
(MORNING
SESSION)
SC
has a predominant emphasis in the physical sciences and is the lead funder of
physical sciences research in the U.S. DOE continues to be one of the top five
U.S. funding agencies of research in the physical sciences, earth &
environmental sciences, mathematics & computer science, engineering, life
sciences and of scientific user facilities.
Overall in the U.S. there has been a steady decline in support for the physical sciences since 1970 versus an overall increase in the biological sciences. DOE funding has also declined since 1970 while other basic science agency budgets have generally increase. While SC has fared slightly better than DOE overall, it is essentially at same point today as in 1985. BER’s budget has essentially been flat for the past 10 years with the exception of the current fiscal year.
Today, about 1/3 of SC funding goes to the National Labs and 1/3 goes to universities and other research institutes although this later number is really larger since many of these investigators benefit from SC’s no-charge user facilities.
SC got nearly everything it requested in FY01 for an overall increase of ~12%. SC’s FY01 priorities include the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS), high performance computing, user facility upgrades, nanoscale science and life sciences & biomedical engineering. BER (along with BES) saw largest increase (~$35M) in SC. The scientific community spoke for SC in FY01 (and already for FY02) – university presidents, representatives and senators.
FY02 science issues – We need to ensure that we continue to meet the needs of the Department’s 15,000 facility users and that we maintain core research programs and core capabilities. These cannot be preserved with flat funding, inadequate cost of living increases and inadequate infrastructure support. Also at issue is SC’s scientific leadership in its areas of greatest strength. DOE has not paid as much attention as it should to the National Academy’s COSEPUP report about US scientific leadership in general and in specific areas of science. SC continues to lose ground in infrastructure and fusion.
Our
greatest opportunities in FY01 and FY02 – SNS, nanoscale science, computation,
high energy physics, nuclear physics, Bringing the Genome to Life.
Charge to BERAC – What is the overall quality of BER science? What is the overall quality of BER’s research topics and the facilities it supports? How does the BER program interface with other Federal programs? What would be your priorities if additional funds were available?
BER suggested the following challenges, priorities and opportunities for BERAC comment – Bringing the Genome to Life, biomedical engineering, Global Change Research that includes a greater understanding of aerosols and health, research at the interface of molecular biology and ecological research, advanced climate modeling, Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory upgrades for proteomics research, increases for low dose radiation research.
Over
the coming weeks I hope to make visits to the different Federal agencies and
programs that are complementary to the BER program to identify new
opportunities for interaction. BER
already has many external connections across the entire range of its programs
with many other agencies which is a good thing
Dr. Francis
Collins, Director National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH
DOE/BER initiated the Human Genome Program in the face of violent community opposition. NIH was admittedly a late arrival. DOE and NIH have had a strong and productive partnership over the last 10 years. I certainly value the general partnership with DOE and in particular my interactions with Ari Patrinos.
The
human genome has been sequenced by 20 genome centers around the world with the
majority of the sequence having been determined by five centers including the
DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI) for which we are very grateful to Dr. Elbert
Branscomb, the former JGI director. ~65% of the sequencing was done in the US.
The
human genome project is a lot more than about sequencing DNA. The US has the
lead in most or all of these other areas of research. What is our path forward?
The series of 5 year research plans between NIH and DOE have been extremely
valuable. We are poised to be able to do very interesting things to understand
how cells work over the next 5-10 years. We are likely to get to a point where
computer models are a major part of the approach to biology. BER’s proposed
Bringing the Genome to Life effort is a great strategy with a great name. I
also understand DOE’s need to maintain its agency- specific focus. I do hope to
maintain and expand our partnerships in the future.
What about private sector activity? It is absolutely crucial to the success of the genome program. We will depend on the private sector for the development of products and diagnostics where the US maintains leadership though today most pharmaceutical companies are international.
Ray Gesteland on the BER genome program – Genomics has lifted biology to a whole new level. BER has played key role. BER’s contributions have been substantial and spectacular in spite of minimal resources compared to NIH. BER’s early vision, its development of key technology, high-speed capillary electrophoresis, engineering of enzymes, cloning and sorting of chromosomes are just a few examples.
Warren Washington on the BER global change research program – The US Global Change Research Program is now over 10 years old. It has been substantially reviewed by the National Academy of Science. It is an excellent example of very good interagency coordination. BER’s strengths are in climate modeling and the use of supercomputers, the role of clouds and radiation (our biggest uncertainty in climate), carbon cycle research (a big sticking point at the recent meeting in the Haig) with big policy implications, aerosols and global warming, ecological research. There is a need for integration of all the science in this program.
Jim Tiedje on BER’s environmental research – The Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) program is an integrated program that supports basic research to enhance the environmental restoration of DOE problem areas. No other federal programs have focused on the basic science underpinning these challenges in spite of other federal and private investments. NABIR’s specific focus is on the remediation of metals and radionuclides. The program works well with other agencies, especially DOD and EPA. Importantly, the NABIR program opened a Field Research Center this year to get laboratory research into the field.
Al Rabson on BER’s medical sciences research – Structural biologists need and use BER’s user facilities at the DOE light sources. There is a big role for genomics across all of NIH. NIH’s Bioengineering Consortium (BECON) has a great need for interaction with engineers and physical scientists. BER is a great partner in BECON.
Keith Hodgson on BER facilities – BER has two classes of user facilities, those that are recognized as traditional facilities and nontraditional user facilities. Both of these need to evolve to meet future DOE and National needs. The BER structural biology facilities are an example of multiple partnerships across DOE and other agencies. Not only have users increased by ~3X over the past 8-10 years but productivity has also increased by ~7X. Since January of this year 51% of all published protein structures internationally have benefited from the use of the 4 DOE light sources and its user beamlines. Jonathan Greer noted that we are on the verge of another explosion in biology parallel to last 10 years of growth in the structural biology. The focus will increasingly be on function not just structure. We are making a transition to high throughput structural biology. There are also considerable industrial investments today as well in the last 5 years. Today, the use of protein structure information plays an increasingly important role in drug design versus only 5-6 years ago. This is a point that could be used effectively by Dr. Dresselhaus.
Discussion
on education needs - What is going on to develop the next generation of
scientists in genomics? Genomics came about because of interdisciplinary
activities. DOE has generally done a good job in its Ethical Legal and Social
Issues program on public education in genomics. Overall we are not doing a good
enough job in science education. Many groups such as women and minorities are
still underrepresented. Is DOE (or any science agency) doing enough? Dr.
Dresselhaus noted that SC has a new collaboration with NSF in the education
area. It has always been controversial for DOE to be involved in education
areas. The NSF connection may help. SC should certainly be a big player at
least starting at the undergraduate level but K-12 education may be more
questionable.
This
program couples theoretical and experimental biology to create computational
models that will drive our use of biological data and future laboratory
research.
Program
goals –
1.
Determine
the structure of the proteome and characterize the protein machines of DOE
microbes and model organisms. Information on gene function is essential.
Proteomics is the characterization of all the proteins being expressed in a
given cell at any one time. Protein machines are the protein-protein complexes
that carry out the chemistry of living systems.
2.
Define
the architecture and dynamic behavior of gene regulatory networks.
3.
Generate
a genomic and metabolic portrait of natural microbial ecosystems of importance
to DOE’s mission.
4.
Develop
a conceptual framework and the computational tools to simulate and ultimately
predict metabolic pathways and cellular functions.
Every
organism is, at some level, an informative model for every other organism. The
number and types of protein complexes and molecular machines in cells may be
finite across a wide range of organisms. A goal is to leverage these
similarities rapidly and cheaply starting with in silico approaches and to then
focus on differences between organisms and to relate this information to
different biological functions.
The
Microbial Cell Project, initiated by BER in FY01, is the leading edge for the
Genomes to Life program. There needs to be a flow of ideas and results between
the two. Parts of the Microbial Cell Project will also interact with other
elements across the BER and DOE programs.
The
Genomes to Life program will need to develop unique and strong management principles.
There is a strong analogy to the strategies used by the genome program. There
is a need to external advisory input, for both big, closely managed projects
and for individual projects with shorter than normal turnover time.
NSF had a workshop this past summer to discuss a program with much overlap with the Genomes to Life program. NSF will focus on microbes and their environments. There is a big opportunity for interaction and coordination especially given scope and cost of this program. Mary Clutter and Ari have been discussing these issues for over a year. An interagency group has been formed to focus on the coordination of some of these issues. An interagency report to be issued imminently will serve as a blue print for future interagency efforts.
Ken Nealson - Director , Center for Life Detection at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab
Comments on the Genome to Life program – Don’t do something different but something additional. There needs to be a link to what is really going on in the environment. We need to understand the environments where microbes live to be able to attack DOE environmental problems. Microbes have incredible metabolic diversity. Virtually every energy source on this planet will have an organism that can use it.
Enormous opportunities to use information and understanding of microbial evolution, genomics, cells, populations and communities to develop tools for bioremediation for example. Knowledge of microbial metabolic capabilities and microbial responses to environmental change enables the design and implementation of engineering strategies.
A key interest and value in determining how the chemistry of a microbial population in a given environment compares to the genomic diversity of that population and to the diversity and interactions of the individual microbial metabolisms found in that environment. To maximize the likelihood of success it would be helpful to start in some very well (chemically) defined environments before moving directly into unique DOE environments.
Comments
on Genome to Life program – Individual organisms can be viewed as a complex
computer code – genes = individual lines of code, interactions of
genes/products = grouped lines of code, etc. Developing an understanding of
cellular regulatory mechanism is a complex challenge. There may be value in the
use of diverse methods developed for complex system analysis in a variety of
systems.
While this is an appropriate large scale computational challenges biological systems are not inherently logical. They are not predictable in a simple way. There are no universal truths. Perhaps biology is more like climate modeling than nuclear physics. We don’t yet know enough about how biology works to know which if any of these other analytic/modeling strategies will work. There is a keen need for data sets collected in a more precise quantitative way than they have been to date.
From a computational perspective people may be underestimating the challenge of collecting useful and useable data. There is a need for a common data collection platform/framework so that comparisons can actually be made across data sets. While there is a real software engineering need there is actually a much greater need for controlled vocabularies. There are also serious infrastructure issues just for biological databases.
Scientific
presentation in support of Bringing the Genome to Life – Demonstration of a
working strategy for analyzing molecular machines and their subcomponents. Use
of affinity purification methods and mass spectrometry to identify molecular
machines, their components and other proteins involved in interactions.
AFTERNOON
SESSION
Origins of this initiative - Only about 1 year old. Martha Krebs, then SC Director, charged BERAC with defining a research program that leveraged success and capabilities in genomics, structural biology and computational science. A BERAC subcommittee, chaired by Ray Gesteland, met in January and March 2000 to develop a program recommendation that approved and publihsed in June 2000. In September 2000 Ernie Moniz and Millie Dresselhaus charged BER with developing a roadmap for the Gesteland committee report that included more scientific specifics. A roadmapping group was put together and met twice in October and twice in November, jointly at a Microbial Cell Project workshop and again for final drafting of the roadmap being discussed today. The overall goal is for this program plan and roadmap to impact the FY 2002 budget.
Special thanks to Betty Mansfield, Amy Reeves, Doug Vaughan and Denise Casey for their editorial support. Thanks also to Barbara Wold, Elbert Branscomb and Mike Knotek for their leadership and to the many scientists from the labs and broader community for their help, input and work in putting together this roadmap.
We
need feedback from you quickly on the documents that have already been and will
be prepared. We are also soliciting feedback from the broader scientific
community and from other agencies. Finally, we need advice from BERAC on how to
best seek future advice on the Genome to Life program, e.g., should we form a
high level steering group?
The Microbial Cell Project – Focus on research underpinned by DOE capabilities and addressing a range of DOE mission needs such as bioremediation, carbon sequestration and renewable energy.
Microbial
Cell workshop guidance -
·
Identifying
a minimum genome for life is not a good theme for this project. A minimum
genome would be very environment dependent.
·
Focus
on physiological and biochemical functions. Emphasize biochemical pathways of
DOE mission interest, unknown genes, moderate proteome resolution, high level
resolution of DOE relevant pathways, high throughput tools for gene/protein
expression patterns. Choose microbes that are genetically manipulable. Develop
tools for an information on the localization of these pathways with cells,
reaction kinetics, associations and disassociations of proteins within these
pathways and the fluxes of proteins in microbes associated with these pathways.
· Develop capabilities for computational modeling – Model regulatory networks and biochemical pathways first.
In the future there needs to be an expansion/integration of efforts to characterize the interaction of microbes within communities. The program should study more than two organisms – perhaps in a controllable bioreactor first and then in a natural, uncontrolled environment. Metabolic pathways of importance to DOE mission needs should continue to be emphasized. There should be an increased emphasis on regulatory networks and the underlying molecular mechanisms, the structure of molecular machines, high throughput technologies for protein function and computational modeling of individual cells and microbial communities.
While there is considerable similarity to NSF interests there are complementary gaps and lots of basic biology that needs to be done which is a logical match to NSF’s traditional individual PI initiated research.
The goal is to systematically characterize the machines of life – complexes, their modifications, protein-protein interfaces, affinities and kinteics, spatial and temporal hierarchies of assembly and serial connections among complexes. This will be a large, coordinated, multitechnology effort. We do have many tools to start with but there is also a need for rapid technology development. We need reevaluate progress on a time scale of a few year or less. We need to determine the functional relevance of each component in a complex. We need to focus on specific molecular machines relevant to DOE challenges, e.g., DNA repair, bioremediation, carbon cycle. There is value to DOE to characterize the diversity of microbes of importance to DOE mission.
Although the initial and major focus will be on microbes, we need to identify how the new capabilities, technologies and biology can be used understand and predict the responses of people to environmental exposures.
What could we do with $50M annually over 5 years if 1/3 was used for modeling/computation. We could characterize the protein complexes in 3 model organisms, 3 environmentally stimulated regulatory networks and microbial diversity in 3 distinct sites.
Integrating and analyzing large data sets is at the heart of this initiative along with the development of tools for biological simulation and prediction. DOE will focus on its own needs and strengths. Bioinformatics, advanced computing and algorithms, protein structure prediction and macromolecular simulation (e.g. CASP), molecular modeling and computational chemistry are all DOE strengths. This needs to be integrated across each of the laboratory-based experimental goals rather than being a goal in itself.
Computation provides a linkage between the different levels of biological challenges described in this initiative. There is a need for significant developments in bioinformatics and genome annotation including genome assembly and annotation, generation of phylogenetic trees, identification of regulatory elements and pathway inference from comparative genomics. There is a need for a fundamental new biology and new algorithms for analyzing data. We also need to think about data and information standards that bridge industry, the labs and academia.
Technology development needs – This new program will require entirely different classes of high-throughput experiment technologies than we have today including high throughput biochemistry, analytical techniques and improved imaging technologies. Specific technologies include: microarry technologies for DNA and proteins, tools for gene product localization and imaging within cells, tools for obtaining 3-dimensional structures of macromolecular complexes in cells and tools for isolating and characterizing all expressed proteins in cells.
Membrane proteins remain a problem even for this new program. There remain three levels of problems - sufficient protein expression, protein stabilization in native conformation and protein crystallization if you can even do the first two.
Public
comment – None
Meeting
adjourned at 5:15 PM.
Jim
Tiedje, BERAC – NABIR subcommittee reports (2)
The first report focuses on the development of a database system NABIR, on NABIR data management and on data management at the Field Research Center (FRC). Will researchers use it? There is good science underpinning the design of these resources. A focus on FRC data will be particular value. There needs to be a data user committee to help ensure that principal investigators will want to use this resource.
The second report focuses on a review of NABIR’s bacterial transport element. Microbes need to get to contaminated sites to do their (bioremediation) job. The committee was asked about program relevance, uniqueness, its linkage to other NABIR elements and research quality. Research in the bacterial transport element focuses on use of the Oyster site on the eastern shore of Virginia, a site managed by the Nature Conservancy. The program supports excellent science. However, the site is not as appropriate for DOE (NABIR) needs as are other sites. The committee recommended that the value of current research expertise be harnessed for use at a DOE-relevant site in the next few years but that no further research be conducted at the Oyster site after that.
Both reports accepted without discussion.
·
Jerry
Elwood is now officially the Director of the Environmental Sciences Division
·
Marv
Frazier doing well
·
Noelle
Metting joined us as an IPA from Pacific Northwest National Lab
·
BER
did get a big increase in FY01 but the numbers needed to be viewed in the
context of numerous general reduction and congressonal earmarks. It should be
noted that two of the earmarks are parts of our core programs, e.g., low dose
and molecular nuclear medicine.
Notable
FY01 increases
·
Microbial
Cell Project - a new initiative
·
Low
dose is consolidated in BER though we will continue our partnership with EM
·
New
funds for bioengineering following an FY00 effort using internal funds
·
Molecular
nuclear medicine - not clear if increase is specifically earmarked
·
Infrastructure
investments impacting structural genomics – Laboratory Office Module at the
Advanced Photon Source, DNA repair/protein complex beamline at the Adanced
Light Source, boosting proteomics capabilities at the Environmental Molecular
Sciences Laboratory
·
Climate
modeling and simulation though balancing decreases elsewhere
·
We
are always faced with the challenge of balancing increases and reductions
resulting in tough, priority based decisions. There is a concern for what is
generally support for the growth of new programs with no help for base
programs. This is an alarming trend that may not change. It may be appropriate
to emphasize the ongoing process of program adjustment rather than simply
talking about core (which can imply static) programs.
·
BER
saw significant growth in the late 1980 due to the development and growth of
the Human Genome Program and the Global Change Research Program; however, this
growth was tempered by severe cuts in radiation biology for example.
·
Trevor
Hawkins is now director of the Joint Genome Institute.
·
The
JGI and genome program are nurturing emerging partnerships with computational
science partners.
·
The
JGI portal is a good place to visit – www.jgi.doe.gov.
·
The
JGI does more than human DNA sequencing. We are all related at some level.
Valuable information can be obtained from other organisms to help understand
the human sequence, e.g., from mouse and Fugu fish. The JGI will complete a
draft DNA sequence of the Fugu fish in March 2001. The NIH and Sanger Center
will complete the mouse draft DNA sequence in March 2001.
·
JGI
microbe month in October 2000 – draft DNA sequence of a diverse group of 15
microbes. This is an experiment to see if this type and quality of DNA sequence
information is valuable to the community. We have not made a decision to switch
from high quality complete DNA sequencing but this experiment will help us and
the broader community to decide the best strategy to use in the future. There
is a factor of 3 to 4 cost difference between high draft and complete DNA
sequencing due to finishing costs so the decision is not insignificant.
·
We
value in and are proud of our diverse partnerships – USDA, NIH, NSF, NN
·
New
DNA sequencing strategies - Richard Mathies. Beta-tested technology with the
potential to increase sequencing speed 8x. Tests so far have resulted in 500
base pair reads in about 20 minutes! Also testing a rolling circle
amplification method that could be used on any circular (microbial) genome. Can
take individual microbes and get massive amplification (using random primers)
of about 1 million fold in about 6 hours at ambient temperature. This offers
great potential for going after uncharacterized / unisolated / uncultured
microbes as described in the Genomes to Life program.
·
The
JGI has also expanded its real partnerships beyond the original three labs.
·
The
low dose radiation research program continues to be a maturing and growing
effort with ongoing interest from Senator Domenici.
·
Boron
Neutron Capture Therapy – program “closure” following last year’s BERAC report
(http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/ober/berac/bnctfnl1199.html). The program has shifted to the
development of innovative isotopes/radiotheraphy for cancer therapy.
·
Bioengineering
– This is a formal program to support laboratory capabilities in this area that
includes an essential and substantial academic/medical collaboration. Our
principal activities are in imaging. Our program interfaces with efforts at NIH
through BECON (the Bioengineering Consortium). Mike Viola is an active member
of BECON. DOE is also represented on BECON by Dick Swaja, an IPA from Oak Ridge
National Lab who is working in Wendy Baldwin’s office at NIH.
·
Our
medical sciences program has an exciting new emphasis on imaging gene
expression in vivo.
·
US
Global Change Research Program is now 10 years old. The next 10-year plan is
being developed as called for in the program’s enabling legislation. This
activity is being coordinated by an interagency steering committee from NASA,
NOAA, NSF, DOE. The new plan will have six 6 research elements – climate
variability & change, atmospheric composition, carbon cycle, water, cycle,
land use/cover change, terrestrial & aquatic ecosystem resources in
addition to four enabling/integrating activities – human dimensions,
observations, information & data management, modeling.
·
The
National Assessment report was just released looking at a range of climate
change projections based on an assumed average rise of 3-5 degrees C in the US
over the next 100 years.
·
ARM
– continuing focus on improving parameterization of atmospheric properties
especially clouds, in climate models. ARM was featured on the cover of the last
two issues of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society indicating
that it is still a productive program that is having an impact. We continue to
operate 3 ARM CART sites in the U.S. Great Plains, the North Slope of Alaska
and the tropical Western Pacific. Overall program coordination is by Wanda
Ferrell and Pat Crowley.
·
Climate
modeling - continued focus on decade to century projection. Our program is
included as part of a coordinated solicitation for new research in Scientific
Discovery through Advanced Computing that is being coordinated by the SC Office
of Advanced Scientific Computing Research. Dave Bader provides overall
coordination.
·
Atmospheric
Sciences – continued focus on atmospheric chemistry research, transport,
composition. An additional focus on aerosols and their impact on radiative
forcing is being planned. Peter Lunn provides overall coordination.
·
Carbon
cycle research - knowing where carbon is and where it goes. This was a key
issue at the recently collapsed Haig talks. Two of our “nontraditional”
facilities play key roles – the AmeriFlux network to measure net CO2
exchange at 42 sites in the US and FACE (Free Air CO2 Enrichment) to
study elevated CO2 impacts across a variety of ecosystems. Roger
Dahlman provides overall coordination.
·
Ecological
Processes research – how will ecosytems and resources respond to atmospheric
and climate change. Overall coordination by Jerry Elwood and staff.
·
Integrated
Assessment - cost/benefits of global change, of CO2 sequestration
options and of greenhouse gas mitigation technologies. John Houghton
coordination.
·
Carbon
sequestration roadmap with Fossil Energy lead and significant input from John
Houghton. Strategies for enhancing CO2 sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems and the ocean and an assessment of the impacts of different
strategies. BER has funded 2 centers for Terrestrial (ORNL, PNNL, ANL) and
Ocean (LLNL, LBNL) Carbon Sequestration research. The goal is to enhance
natural CO2 sequestration at a range of scales – molecular,
ecosystem processes, landscape. Roger Dahlman lead.
·
NABIR
- Anna Palmisano & John Houghton leads with substantial involvement of
Frank Wobber, Dan Drell and Paul Bayer. The first field scale experiment at the
new Field Research Center at ORNL will be conducted in January 2001. So-called
push-pull experiments will be conducted to probe the microbial subsurface
communities and to see what nutrients they will respond to.
·
Environmental
Molecular Sciences Laboratory - Paul Bayer coordination. Diverse DOE and
interagency sponsors/customers. Doubling of users since FY98. 44% of users are
remote users. 77% of users are from
universities and the private sector. A recent highlight is Dick Smith’s high
throughput proteomics project using mass spectrometry that has the potential to
revolutionize the field.
Keith
Hodgson acknowledged and thanked Ari for his tireless and critical role on
behalf of the Human Genome Project that helped keep the peace and maintain
progress in relations between the private and public sector projects that led
up to last July’s announcement at the White House about the completion of the
draft human DNA sequence and that continues today.
Was
a member of a focus group that is part of COSEPUP (Committee on Science,
Engineering and Public Policy) at the National Academy of Sciences. Looking at
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA is a
good idea but continues to be tough for basic research programs. The Academy is
trying to help resolve this problem. Focus groups were put together for five
different agencies including DOE. The focus groups are not trying to tell
agencies what to do but want to provide useful information.
Evaluations
of GPRA reports get done by various groups including some in House who often
don’t appear to have enough scientific background to make necessary
evaluations. The question of why DOE is even doing any of its science came up
repeatedly during the committee meeting. Currently, GRPA doesn’t acknowledge or
accept failure. The overall goal is to relate GPRA to the budget. Thus, future
faliures could result in budget reductions. Interestingly, OMB finds GPRA
unusable.
Some
issues possible metrics discussed – The number of times publications are cited?
Invitations (and types of invitations) to scientists for outside presentations?
Where is a program with respect to other agencies? Does it fill a unique niche?
Does it play a leadership role? What is the quality of the science? Quality,
leadership and relevance came up repeatedly as key issues.
University
programs looked at differently than lab programs. DOE’s mission focus adds
complication compared to NIH and NSF for example. Knowledge is difficult to
quantify. Failure and success have different meanings in science and business.
There
was a core of people who looked at all five agencies. A draft report is
expected in 6 months or so.
·
Need
for short-term (3-4 weeks) and long-term information
·
Prepare
a capsular view of each program area. Approximately 1 paragraph/page for each
program area plus an overall summary paragraph. A few statistics should be
added to emphasize key points. User facilities are an excellent example that
can be emphasized.
·
BER
doesn’t really have subdisciplines, it has subprograms.
·
Concern
was expressed about the aging cadre of program scientists, equipment and
facilities across the DOE system.
·
A
strength of the BER program is its dynamic nature. The periodic redeploying of
resources is a good thing.
·
Laboratory
scientists are, in fact, scientifically competitive since more than half of
their funds come from non-DOE sources.
·
The
written charge letter does not include Dr. Dresselhaus’ verbal request for
input on BERAC priorities for BER if additional are funds available.
Assignments
/ Leads for preparing paragraphs -
·
EMSL
- Willard Harrison
·
Genome
– Ray Gesteland
·
Bioremediation
– Jim Tiedje
·
Global
change – Warren Washington
·
Structural
biology – Keith Hodgson/Jonathan Greer
·
Low
dose – Roger McClellan
·
Medical
sciences – Curt Civin
·
BERAC
should make a general recommendation to Dr. Dresselhaus to double the BER
budget in 5 years beginning in 2002; to use increases to support core programs,
facilities and new initiatives; to allocated $50M per year the Genomes to Life
program beginning in FY02; and to endorse a doubling of SC budget over 5 years.
·
Concern
was expressed over the use of the description of programs as “core.” Programs
are dynamic not static. The focus should be on the challenges and
opportunities. We do need to pay attention to the erosion of funds that aren’t
part of new initiatives even if programs are regularly recompeted. “Core
capabilities” may be more to the point. BER programs today may be 1/5 to 1/10
what they were in the early 1960’s. NSF has used the term core programs and has
never gotten any new money. Now they are focusing on making more and larger
grants which seems to be much more successful. There continues to be great
suspicion from the outside about DOE’s peer review process.
SC
is beginning to get more support from the outside community -
FY01
support
·
165
letters to OMB from American Physical Society members
·
American
Chemical Society alerts sent out on behalf of SC generated 3455 responses
·
American
Society of Microbiology letter to the Hill especially related to facilities
·
Federation
of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) telegrams to all members
of Congress
·
Dear
Colleague letters with 35 Senate and 97 House member signatories
·
37
university presidents and chancellor letters
·
Coordinated
SC advisory committee support
FY02
support ongoing
·
FASEB
FY02 consensus conference and report to Congress
·
Bingaman
letter on the floor (Dec 5)
·
22
Senators signed letter to Clinton
·
Energy
Science Coalition formed & developed series of talking points
Request
by BERAC members -
·
Would
like an inventory of the intellectual capital across DOE laboratories in the
BER program by discipline and age distribution.
·
Spreadsheet
with FY 00 & FY01 funds plus a one pager on the types details of BER
supported facilities.
Public
comment - none
Meeting
adjourned 12:10 PM
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Biological and Environmental Research Advisory
Committee (BERAC) Meeting
December 11-12, 2000
American Geophysical Union
2000 Florida Avenue,
N.W.
Washington, DC
20009
List of Attendees present for all or a portion of
the meeting
BERAC Members
Dr.
Eugene W. Bierly, American Geophysical Union
Dr.
Claire M. Fraser, The Institute for Genomic Research
Dr.
Raymond F. Gesteland, University of Utah
Dr.
Jonathan Greer, Abbott Laboratories
Dr.
Richard E. Hallgren, American Meteorology Society
Dr.
Willard W. Harrison, University of Florida
Dr.
Keith O. Hodgson, Stanford University
Dr.
Roger O. McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Dr.
Jill Mesirov, Whitehead Institute
Dr.
Louis Pitelka, University of Maryland
Dr.
Alan Rabson, National Cancer Institute
Dr.
James M. Tiedje, Michigan State University
Dr.
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Dr.
Barbara Wold, California Institute of Technology
U.S. Department of Energy
Staff
Mildred
Dresselhaus, Director, Office of Science (SC)
Jim
Decker, SC
Rick
Borchelt, SC
John
Metzler, SC
Ari
Patrinos, Associate Director, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
(OBER)/SC
David
Thomassen, Designated Federal Officer, BERAC, OBER/SC
Michael Riches, OBER/SC
Joanne
Corcoran, OBER/SC
Daniel
Drell, OBER/SC
Marvin
Stodolsky, OBER/SC
Mike
Teresinski, OBER/SC
Dean
Cole, OBER/SC
Peter
Kirchner, OBER/SC
Prem
Srivastava, OBER/SC
Noelle
Metting, OBER/SC
Roland
Hirsch, OBER/SC
Wanda
Ferrell, OBER/SC
Roger
Dahlman, OBER/SC
Walt
Polansky, SC
Thom
Dunning, Jr., SC
Mike
Osinski, SC
Jim
Tavares, SC
Sharlene
Weatherwax, SC
Justine
Alchowiack, EM
Don
Lentzen, EH
Mohandas
Bhat, EH
Richard
Bradley, PO
Allen Hartford, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Trevor Hawkins, Joint Genome Institute
Elbert Branscomb, Joint Genome Institute
Ed Hildebrand, OSTP
Francis Collins, NIH/NHGRI
John Watson, NIH
Mollie Sourwine, NIH
Amy Swain, NIH
Ann Vidaver, Department of Agriculture
Leland Ellis, Department of Agriculture
Sharon Parker, Department of Agriculture
Jack Bagley, Battelle
Walt Schimmerling, NASA
Shawn McLaughlin, NOAA
Barbara Jasny, SCIENCE
Magazine
Eliot Marshall, SCIENCE Magazine
William Bentley, University of Maryland
Michelle Broido, University of Pittsburgh
Tim Pechinpaugh, Preston Gates
Gerry Rubin, University of CA/Berkeley
William Busa, Cellomics, Inc.
Ted Cartwright, American Society for Microbiology
Andrey Poletayev, Moscow