 Welcome everyone. My name is Kelly Oskig. I'm a Senior Program Officer for the Ocean Studies Board with the General Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. And I'm also served as the Study Director. So thank you all for joining us this morning for the webinar on the report that was just released, title of some priorities in ocean drilling in search of Earth's past and future. This is an interim product from the National Academy of Medicine. Oh, Kelly has frozen on this. She's disappeared. Am I still there? Yes, we can hear you again. You just were saying that this is an interim product. So you can download a copy of the report and other supporting materials at www.nap.edu. A recording of this webinar will be available in the coming weeks on the National Academy's website. And so we'll put a link to both the report and the website in the chat moment here. So those joining us that are not familiar with the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. We are a private nonprofit institutions that provide independent objective analysis and advice to the US to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, technology, and medicine. For each study, panel members for their expertise and experience, and they serve pro bono to carry out the study statement of tasks. The reports that result from the study present the consensus view of the committee must undergo external peer review before they're released as to this report. As study director, I do want to take just a moment to extend an enormous thank you to our sponsor, the National Science Foundation, for sponsoring and entrusting us to do this important work. Thank you to our committee of dedicated volunteers for their endless hard work. What we're presenting today is just one piece of information feeding into a compelling innovative and forward looking research strategy for the next decade for all of ocean sciences. Thank you to our peer reviewers who provided excellent constructive feedback on the report and thank you to the dozens of experts who shared their time and thoughts with the committee throughout the process enriching our discussions and our end product. We have several members of the committee with us here today to discuss the report. Before I just want to get over to them. I just have a few reminders. The first one is please note that this webinar is scheduled to last 60 minutes. We'll start off with a presentation summarizing the report by the committee and then we'll open it up to questions that you may have. We should have roughly 30 minutes for discussion after the presentation. To ask a question. Simply click the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen and type in your question. You can submit a question at any time during the presentation. So now I'd like to introduce the committee co chairs who will be presenting today. Tuva Askenhauer will start off the presentation. She is Dean of Professor at Oregon State University's College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. Jim Yoder will talk to you the second half of the presentation. Jim is Dean Emeritus of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Professor Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. And with that I will turn it over to you Tuva. Thank you very much Kelly. Welcome everybody. There's 129 of you. It's wonderful to see such interest in this work. So I will start out by letting you know sort of the structure of our report. We have four chapters and I will talk you through the first two chapters of the report. And Jim will talk you through the last two chapters of the report and we'll actually spend more time on the latter parts of this report than the former parts. So let's dive right in. The first portion of the report we really try to make sure that we place this work in the context of the overall task of this particular committee. And in order to do that we started out with sort of a brief history of the accomplishments of this program. And many of you are very familiar with this program but not all of you may be. So I want to start out by just reviewing the fact that the United States really has led the international science scientific ocean drilling community since 1968. In particular the Joides resolution funded by the National Science Foundation and its operational team provide essential leadership. The Joides resolution and its predecessor vessel have operational capabilities that are unique for scientific ocean drilling. And so since the beginning of its operation in 1985 that Joides resolution has collected. And I was so surprised to learn this 95% of the total core length for international scientific ocean drilling has been collected by the Joides resolution. And of course those are free and openly available access to samples and data from these scores are available to the international earth and ocean sciences community. US scientists have also led the ocean drilling community in the conception and design of drilling projects and in the dissemination of research results in terms of publications and also in terms of collaborations. So this is fantastic work. This work has led to scientific contributions to the discovery and understanding of many important earth processes play tectonics formation destruction of the ocean crust, and how these processes generate geo hazards. The reconstruction of extreme greenhouse and ice house climates identification of major extinctions, etc, etc. So, as you all know, scientific ocean drilling is now at a critical juncture. The Joides resolution has not been renewed the operation will end in 2024 as far as we know. Currently, there are no plans in place that we know of for future dedicated US drilling vessel. Meanwhile, the US scientific ocean drillings international partners in Europe and Japan are jointly moving forward with plans for a new program phase with births on contracted vessels available to contributing members member countries. The United States has not joined this consortium. Additionally, other countries, China, for example, is developing a new scientific ocean drilling program totally independently. Thus, the landscape for scientific ocean drilling really is changing and will change after 2024 for the US. So, with the absence of a dedicated drilling vessel supported by the United States, the capacity for future scientific ocean drilling for the United States and its present international partners will likely be reduced and we're estimating it will be reduced to approximately 10% of its current capacity. And so to illustrate this, here's an image from our report that indicates in black the parts of the ocean that will no longer be accessible for drilling without a rise of a drilling capability. Further, our committee heard a lot on the importance of a trained workforce, skilled and planning, collecting and analyzing and archiving scientific samples and data. Such a workforce has been and will continue to be critical to the future of ocean sciences in its entirety and ocean drilling contributes very significantly to this goal. So, some of the highly specialized expertise developed as part of the drilling program will likely be lost with a closure or even with a temporary cessation of US scientific ocean drilling. So, without new infrastructure or sampling investments participation of US scientists on expeditions will become limited access to new ocean drilling samples and data will be curtailed. And these conditions will certainly impact progress globally, but specifically really impact us as leadership position. And things that will be impacted include research on some of the pressing topics that ocean drilling has addressed and we'll talk a little bit more about that later. Well, the good news though is that the National Science Foundation and the science community have put a lot of thought and resources into the next steps for the US role in scientific ocean drilling. This effort has included international and US identification of priority science areas. US conceptualization of drilling vessel requirements through the publication of the science framework. And the science mission requirements report in 2022, as well as a series of other workshops. And additionally, of course, the National Science Foundation did ask the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine to form a committee this committee on the 2025 2035 Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences for the National Science Foundation, and asked this committee to produce and publish this consensus study serving as an interim report for a more encompassing full Decadal Survey to come. So we're hoping that this interim report provides timely and broad perspective on critical research and infrastructure needed to answer the most compelling research questions that can be advanced only through scientific ocean drawings. All right, our statement of task those of you who are familiar with the process of the academies know that this is a really important portion of the work is understanding and really dissecting our statement of task. This year and you can read it more quickly than I can to you this year it was is the committee statement of task for the interim report. And I just mentioned this is a small portion of a much larger task to produce a Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences for NSF that report hopefully will be released in about a year from now. This statement of task guides the committee's work, and the committee revisited the statement of task in this language, often during our deliberations. I will tell you in order to get through peer review the committee has to respond adequately to all of the components of the statement of task. And equally as important, the committee must not work beyond the bounds of the statement of task. And we took our statement of task very seriously and really tried to adhere to it and answer the exact questions that we were asked to address. Alright, our report is authored by 23 members of the committee. They all represent diverse disciplines within Ocean Sciences. They also represent a diversity of geography in terms of where they're located. Career level affiliation and personal background, and I can personally tell you that this has been a very dedicated group of folks who really have tried to make sure that we hear the community and echo what we have heard. Okay. We thought the chapter two here is a primer. You all know scientific ocean drilling well, you're here. So you know something about scientific ocean drilling. But we thought it was important to provide a primer on the program to explain its importance, its legacy, provide a high level overview of how the program works for an audience that is not as familiar or maybe even completely unfamiliar with scientific We won't go into the details today but within chapter two, you can find some key terminology and concepts that are useful for understanding how ocean drilling scientific ocean drilling works. A bit about the structure and how you get from an idea to an expedition. We're going to provide a brief history of the program, and we conclude with major accomplishments from its inception through 2013, when the first phase of iodp ended, and that was about the time that the last decade or survey began. And so accomplishments after that we cover further down in the report. And so this discussion that leads us to our very first conclusion within our report. The report by the way has several conclusions but we don't have a recommendation again those of you who are familiar with the National Academy's process will know that a committee can issue recommendations but we can do so in our final report. We have a few conclusions, in particular a conclusion about how research supported by scientific ocean drilling has really fundamentally transformed our understanding of the planet, including some very very important mechanisms plate tectonics geo hazards reconstruction of past climates, etc. All right with that, I will turn it over to my co chair Jim Yoder to cover the remainder of the report. Take it away Jim. In the next slide. So one of the things we were asked to do was to assess the progress. Also, since the sauce, the first DSOS report which was 10 years ago and so that it was summarized in the text but also we made the summary table and if you track across say for the first example. The next slide by in the first DSOS report is what are the rates mechanisms impacts and geographic variability of sea level change. And the next column shows the different iodp expeditions that were relevant to answering that question. And then there's a summary of some of the key findings, such as the highly unstable West Antarctic ice sheet during the warm period of 4 million years ago is relevant understanding potential changes in the present warming period. Next slide. Hold on. I'm having a technical glitch here. Here we go. Okay. All right, so one of the conclusions. And this is the first conclusion of this section is that the scientific ocean drilling program would benefit from developing and executing a formal evaluation for assessing progress made toward achieving scientific priorities. And equally important is for communicating and sharing the program's achievements and value. My experience, my personal experience is that there is not great communication between the ocean drilling community and those who are studying the modern ocean. And yet each could benefit from, from more exchange. I know I learned a lot about the current ocean. When I dabble into iodp science and that they're, they're, I'm sure others feel somewhat similarly. And second conclusion is that we identified five high priority research areas which are similar to those identified by the drilling community. And I'll read the bold text. So the five that we focused on our ground truth in climate change, evaluating past marine ecosystem responses to climate and ocean change. Exploring the sub seafloor biosphere characterizing the tectonic evolution of the ocean basins and monitoring monitoring and assessing geo hazards. We also wanted to, we also spent some time on a couple of definitions that we will probably use also in the final report. The first one is vital. And so the way we use vital is that that is compelling high priority research with the potential to transform scientific knowledge of the interconnected earth system and the critical role of the ocean in that system. And there is also we use the word urgent, which means that the science priority is time sensitive and has this is most important has immediate societal relevance to emerging challenges at regional to global scales. So of, of the high priority research areas and those are listed in the first column all five of them. This is how we characterize them. All we consider vital science to we consider urgent science. And those are ground truth and climate change and geo hazards both meet their definition of urgent and evaluating marine ecosystem responses is urgent when it informs ecosystem responses of high interest. In other words, those that might occur changes that might occur within this century or within about 100 years longer term changes that might come out of ocean drilling studies we don't consider urgent. But they are vital. That is vital science. So I'm going to go through the five very briefly go through the five science themes that we that we chose this slide the axes on the y axis shows the atmospheric CO2. And the x axis is a time scale obviously not linear that dates back as far as 600 million years ago and goes up to the present. So one of the this is one of the urgent high priority areas is ground truth and climate change, or to put it coring the past to inform the future. And a key objective is to test our current models of the modern ocean with their skill during warming events in the distant past. The data on this figure comes from proxies on micro fossils and organic compounds and that's the blue data the blue circles on the left that's all iodp data. And on the end are some model output. And this builds a record of atmospheric CO2 from the distant past up to the future. The paleoclimate model inter comparison project and the deep time model and inter comparison project use data like this for testing and evaluating calibrating system models or system models. The second second vital question that we had is has to do with monitoring and assessing geo hazards. So strategically placed drilling sites across this schematic show showing conversion plate boundary between the subducting Philippine sea plate and the overriding Eurasian plate off the coast of Japan. It also shows where strategically placed drilling sites across this active region are shown, several of which are now instrumented borehole observatories in other words instruments are placed in the holes drilled by a drill ship. And they measure monitor deformation in the form of strain that can be used to infer fault slip. Note that instruments and boreholes have about 10 times the sensitivity of seismic seismometers placed on the surface of the seabed, leading to better resolution in particular a slow slip seismic seismic events. The importance of projects like this is that slow slip releases strain without a significant seismic event, whereas fast slips or seismogenic ruptures lead to can lead to significant earthquakes and even tsunamis. This shows some past marine ecosystem responses in the distant past during periods of rapid warming and how it might inform potential future changes in the modern ocean. On the left the current ocean has a mix of large and small phytoplankton with larger phytoplankton leading to more efficient energy to higher trophic levels like fish and marine mammals. The warm period of 50 million years ago was dominated by smaller phytoplankton leading to comparatively inefficient food webs, hence fewer higher trophic levels. As the ocean warms question is will the efficiency of future food webs resemble those of the warmer oceans of the past. Another of our vital themes is the subsea floor biosphere. So we know what's in the subsea floor biosphere, but what is it doing? How do the communities interact and move within the subsurface and of interest to NASA? How does the subsurface biosphere inform the limits to life and what does it contribute to the overlying water column? This shows that the alkalinity flux shown schematically shows that the subsea floor biosphere produces about 24 to 58% of the alkalinity flux to the ocean. The fifth high priority is to characterize the evolution of ocean basins such as the formation of oceanic crust and the upper mantle. These include formation at the mid-ocean ridge which is on the left, aging as it moves away from the mid-ocean ridge which is in the middle, and destruction at a subduction zone on the right. The oceanic plate is dark gray, continental lithosphere is brown, and the white arrows show plate motion, and white stars are large earthquakes. These dramatic stages of ocean basin creation often cannot be evidenced, can only be evidenced by drilling through up to one kilometer or more of sedimentation. The axes on this one are five vital areas on the left-most column, and then various reports that talk about national priorities for science are going across the top. And then we try to show, and what this figure shows is that, and as an example, column three is the White House Ocean Climate Action Plan from 2023. And we show that three of our primary research areas, the vital research areas, align with that report's ocean research themes. And same for some of the other reports that are important, that are recent and outline key research themes for the future. We have a long, okay, next one. We have a long table of what can and cannot be done with remaining assets, assuming the JR goes away. For example, these are just examples. The table is quite long and has a lot more in it, but I'll address just the ones that are on the slide. So what can we do? Well, we can do community-driven collaborative research, multidisciplinary research, using existing cores. We can use big data analytics on a wide range of subsea floor standard measurements. We can do large-scale synthesis of science studies that integrate data across multiple expeditions and boreholes, addressing global or regional geographies and time intervals. And that might be the type of thing funded by the Emerging Leaps program. We can develop and development and testing new proxy methods as a possibility, particularly those that are not dependent on ephemeral properties, but can be developed using existing cores. And of course we can use the existing cores to train undergraduate and graduate students on materials and methods. But there's also a long list of what cannot be done, and that would include sample-intensive high-resolution studies, real-time monitoring of fault motion using existing borehole instruments, microbiological and biogeochemical studies requiring fresh samples, fresh biomass, comprehensive studies of igneous and metamorphic rocks, studies of challenging rock types such as those in fault zones, analyses that depend on ephemeral properties like the organic carbon content of pool waters, creation of high-temporal resolution geochemical records, and coordinated new coordinated land-sea studies. Also, some intervals of high scientific interests have already been sampled so extensively, leaving little material for further analyses. And this slide illustrates that the white areas are, of course, styrofoam that has been placed in the core, replacing the material that's been taken out for analyses. And you can see this particular interval is pretty critically important, and so it's been heavily sampled. So carbon sequestration is a current topic of considerable interest. So synthesis of existing ocean drilling data could be used to characterize subsurface rock and sediment environments conducive to storing CO2 for long periods of time. There's also possibility of using a future drill ship, perhaps a mission-specific platform, to perhaps test some of the concepts that come out of analyzing the past strata, the strata that's already been collected. Presumably, if this were to go operational, it would not require the drill ship to drill the holes. That would be somewhat of a waste of talent, but that can be done by commercial ships. And then, if it's liquid CO2, then inserted into the whole appropriate holes. But certainly some experiments could be conducted from the drill ship. So we wanted to demonstrate the capabilities of the current academic research fleet. So the ODP core count, which are the bars, the vertical bars, going up on the left, going up to the top of the graph. And then black on the axes, the bottom axes, are the subsea floor sampling depths that can be reached from current coring infrastructure of the current academic fleet. Those would include some piston cores. And you can see it's quite tiny. And then the blue would be if what used to be the long core on the nor is also reborn in some way so that it could be, and that requires modification of an existing probably global class ship. And that's in blue. So it extends the depth a little bit. Subsea floor sampling depth is on the X-axis. Yellow are subsea floor sampling depths that could be reached in some rocks and sediments with lander-based drills if that capability is developed for the academic research fleet. Our understanding is that there is no ship in the current fleet, in the U.S. fleet, academic research fleet that can lift the existing lander-based drills. So that would either have to be developed or you'd have to use some sort of mission-specific platform. And then orange are the subsea floor sampling depths that can only be reached with a drill ship. So this sort of summarizes the infrastructure requirements for the five vital areas of research that go down that are in the first column. And so if you track across, for example, on the first two, it shows that ground-tripping of climate change needs to be, samples need to be collected in deep water in the global ocean. There has to be deep penetration into sediment and, in particular, sediment. There are continuous records from the cores. Those are required. Measurements of ephemeral properties are required. Borehole observatory instrumentation is not required. Logging would be good, but not absolutely required. And if you want to work in the polar regions, you need some ice-strengthened ship. Evaluating marine ecosystem responses to climate and ocean change requires a little bit less, but you do want to work in deep water. You do want deep penetration to reach, say, the warm intervals 50 million years ago. It would be good to have the continuous records from cores and be good to measure ephemeral properties. It's not necessary for a borehole instrumentation. It's not necessary for logging down core. And if you want to work in the polar regions, again, you do require some ice-strengthened shipping. So we talk about this in the text as well as summarizing this table. So the conclusion for this section is, while there are some scientific research objectives that can be accomplished using existing assets, many science objectives critical to U.S. interests cannot be accomplished. So, again, just to kind of reemphasize what Tuba has already mentioned is that scientific ocean drilling is now at a critical junction. And I guess one simple way to summarize it up, if there is no U.S. drill ship, the Japanese drill ship works only in their waters, and E-Cord has sponsored only a small number of MSPs. So for the foreseeable future, only the Chinese will have the capability to drill deep below the sediment surface throughout the global ocean. Next slide. So these are the next steps. The report is now released. There's another, there's a congressional briefing tomorrow. Hard copies will be out soon. And we're continuing to gather information. We're making full, we're making progress on the full report, which will contain recommendations covering all of ocean science, including ocean drilling. And that report will be out in about a year. I guess we'll go right on, go right on to the left hand. And thank you very much for your attention. Thank you, Chairman Tuba. They provided a very high level overview. I know most of you probably haven't had the chance to even download the report yet, but I encourage you to do so. There's a lot of detail in there when you can't cover in 30 minutes. So we have plenty of time for questions. Please don't be shy to enter your questions into the Q&A. While we wait for some to populate, I have a question that I think many of you would like to answer. So it's really concerning the, you know, societally relevant questions that scientific research really can answer. I was wondering if you could speak more to examples such as the AMOC that, you know, everyone can relate to. And that this is so important in terms of really trying to understand and predict. Well, I can say very quickly that that is an extremely interesting thing. There's IODP has made some contributions about how AMOC has changed in the past. And there's a lot of interest and big measurement programs to look at the current situation. And so it is a very hot topic. I'm sure we'll have more to say about it in the final report. Others that know more about it than I do are welcome to jump in. And I'll turn it off on the committee like to watch on this question. I can say something. Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'll let you go. So as somebody who directly works in the AMOC space. It's very certain that you'll, you'll hear more in the, in the wider oceans context about present work being done around the AMOC. And that's both direct observational work and modeling work. But much of the modeling work has been informed by the paleo perspective that comes from the ocean drilling program. And so the awareness of the sensitivity of the AMOC is partly come substantially come from these paleo observations. They highlighted the potential for the collapse of the AMOC that we're now still trying to understand. And so that past perspective will continue to be important as we dig further into it. But it was one of the initial drivers of the, of our whole present concern around this potential for the collapse of the global circulation. Jay Z, I'll let you go. I just, I'm muting. Yeah, I was just, I'm muting myself. Yeah, and just, just to sort of build on what Brad was saying was that, you know, our perspective on what the ocean circulation can do has been informed by that observation from the past. And so just 20,000 years ago, it's clear that the ocean circulation was operating in a different mode. And that's something that was discovered actually a few decades ago, and encourage the physical oceanography community to trust their models, which are showing these sort of mode blips. The thing that they also noticed was that these were fairly fast. And again, this is something that's been verified by past observations, going further back in time into the greenhouse intervals, we also see different modes of circulation. And also evidence to suggest that there have been these sort of mode switches. And again, that they occur fairly quickly. So all the details of some of the changes that have occurred in deeper time but that's something that has been a focus of current and proposed drilling going out forward. So, thank you, Jay-Z and Brad and Jim for those answers. We have quite a few questions now in the chat. I just wanted to touch. There's a clarification about the Japanese drilling vessel Chippew from Ugu Uchi. Thank you. And if they can work out of Japanese water, it's just a question or an issue of budget. So thanks for that clarification. There is another question, which we have, we will get, I think, a few times and that's regarding recommendations. So the committee was really focused on their statement tasks, because what are the remaining science priorities that can only be answered the science of position drilling and other science priorities, you know, what sort of infrastructure is needed. What can we, what can we answer what we have and what can't we answer what we have. So we did stop there. In terms of recommendations, our full report will have some recommendations for the next decade of ocean sciences and we did not want to get ahead of ourselves in making recommendations without considering the full breadth of scientific research questions, you know, ocean sciences. So it was very deliberate and it was not to our statement of task. We look forward to releasing that report in about a year's time. Let's see. So here's another question from Mitchell Isle, one of the real strengths of the ocean drilling programs, but the international participation. Is there any recommendation how to continue the international participation, any recommendations or findings. Well, I could start the answer, but others can jump in. Yeah, that is a real strength of IODP was the, all the international participation and the fact that some of the facilities are located in Germany, Japan, so on. And I suspect we'll consider international participation international collaboration cooperation for the whole field of ocean science when we get to it, including ocean drilling and I know that's kind of a general wishy-washy answer but I just want to jump in on this. Maybe I'll just add I mean the committee really was impressed with and we spoke quite a bit about the unique nature of how the scientific ocean drilling program was run. The international aspect is one of them, but also the way in which students are entrained into cruises is unique and special. And those of us who have not been on IODP cruises were very impressed with the approach. And so one of the things that we did talk about is was how some of those approaches can actually be ported to just generally ocean going work, not just drilling related because there's certainly very successful aspects of this program that ought to live on no matter what. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, with regard to international collaboration. One thing that we did emphasize in chapter four there's a section on communicating the worth. And we have throughout the report bold statements that are the findings that are, you know, in addition to these kind of broader conclusions and one of our findings is specifically about the importance of interdisciplinary networks and collaborations across multiple disciplines. And we see that this is essential to the vital and also the additionally urgent science that we've prioritized. So the emphasis is there. How to get to that is, you know, a very challenging situation, given the state that we're at right now and staying within our statement of task of laying out here are the challenges here through the infrastructure here the workforce needs that must be addressed or need to be addressed that that's kind of where what we could do with this report making recommendations is what we can do with the next report, but that also will be integrated across all of ocean science. And, you know, as Jim mentioned in in his part of the presentation, I agree with him he was making a personal comment but I agree with this. The benefits of working across disciplines and working outside of our silos cannot be understated. This is something that the program has been very dedicated to in the past and the benefits within the drilling program. But also within the broader ocean sciences of working in a multi disciplinary and, you know, across career stages, wherever we're located and disciplines is is something that's valued. Can I jump in there's a question about other capabilities from Chris Lowry about, you know, capabilities of hiring geotechnical vessels or drilling platforms. We do have a section in our report where we talk about emerging technologies and what they can help us accomplish. So, please do look at that detail. I think it's within chapter four, but we also point out what can still not be accomplished even with what we believe would be realistic new technologies that could be invested in. There is a question about the congressional briefing that I can answer very quickly. That is a courtesy. This is not congressional mandated study, but as a courtesy we do offer briefings to congressional staff who are interested. That is, that's all of this. So it would be similar to this. We may have two people, we may have 20. We never know. It depends on what's going on that day. Let's see. So I think there's several questions about the international aspect, but I think we've just answered that through the other questions, or through the other answers. I see a question from Anthony Poppers about the list of cannot being much longer than can do. Is your opinion how much this does this negatively alter the state of ocean sciences in the US as a status back significantly is there any anyone want to answer that and in the through the lens of what we said in the report. Right, I think it is pretty clear that that with the retirement of the jr that the US will lose its leadership position in this realm. I think we make that pretty clear in the report. That is of course an unfortunate situation from our perspective. But it is something that that we try to really stress. Anyone want to add to that. Yeah, sure. If I may. Following up on to this point. Anthony, you're right. The list of the canons is a lot longer than the cans. Because our charge is not to make a recommendation. We did not feel comfortable taking that next step that you ask us specifically for. But we feel as tuba pointed out, it should be that we laid out our interpretation of the facts and figures of what can and cannot be done and let the reader and the agency decide. Whether that is significant or not. So we hope that the presentation speaks for itself. Without making such a recommendation at this interim report stage. Yeah, and I guess Rick, I'll just follow up and stress again that we really paid attention to making sure that we adhere to our statement of task. And we took that responsibility very seriously. And not just because that is the rule of the national academies, but also because we do believe that now we know that we've done the work towards the interim report. And we can look at the ocean science priorities broadly across the entirety of the ocean sciences community. It is only then that we can make balanced recommendations that that that really view the entire landscape. But I will also add that I certainly have done. I have learned a lot through the work that we've done on the interim report. And that that more in depth understanding that we, I think all of us have attained will certainly be carried into the work that we're doing for the final report. Can I can I also add really, I think Anthony's question and the responses we've heard so far to it circle back to the point that tuba made it the beginning of the presentation that the capacity is going to be reduced to 10% of the current capacity for ocean drilling. And yeah, you know that the camps are a lot longer than the cans and this is this is where we're seeing sort of the loop closing in the conversation. And so, you know, moving forward, there are going to be very important decisions that need to be made. Thanks everyone for all of the clarifications. There's one part patient in the chat, same the jar itself is not retiring just retiring its role, its current role in the program. Thank you. I'm only for that clarification. There are see early career scientists can we take that one. Right. And, and folks I think everybody can see the questions so this question is really about the importance of this work to early career scientists and, you know, if we don't have a drill ship or if we, even at the short cessation of scientific ocean drilling will essentially result in a brain drain, right, those folks will have to work on something else and may not return and, and this is a real risk that that we talked through as a committee and also included in our report. Jim, did you have something to add to that too. Well, I'm just hoping that this leaps program fills some of that, you know, at least I think you could engage younger scientists on more analysis of existing forest, even though, you know, that's that's a probably not exciting is going out and getting new ones going out on a ship and so on but but hopefully that could help bridge that gap and you know I don't think that is ruled out the possibility of operating mission specific platforms and so that's perhaps a possibility for the future as well. There is a question from Claire Jasper about recommendations to improve collaboration between ocean drilling and the broader science ocean science community. This is a really important point that we did try to stress in our report, and we touched upon in our presentation to Jim spoke to this point. We find we think it is extremely important that the broader ocean sciences community and the ocean drilling community integrate and do that handshake. There is a lot of potential for real societal benefit that can come from being better at connecting across those boundaries. And also, the section that Kristen referred to communicating the worth, really, really bringing the understanding that this work, you know, this work enables us to attain bringing that understanding to other communities, both within the scientific community, as well as the broader community. We felt that that that was something that we needed to spend more time on. And I may add to that. I want to add a personal perspective from being part of this committee. I have learned so much and and have have embraced this opportunity to work with people across the ocean sciences. I mean, geological oceanographer. And I think most of the people who are on this, most of the attendees right now are probably in that realm as well with experience with scientific ocean drilling. But the opportunity to connect with and work with and have discussions with and debates with experts across the ocean sciences that are working in different areas and timeframes has been invaluable. And we're a microcosm. I think of what Claire is raising as an important issue going forward. So I'm glad that you raised that point. Thank you. Are there so we have, we have about eight more minutes. Please, if you have any questions, feel free to put them in the chat. There's a couple comments in here. And there's there's been several comments about the activities to collaborate with research in the US and international. Is there anything more that you all would like to comment on on that specifically. Yeah, I see a comment in the Q and a from Sergio who says that they work for BP. So that, yes, industry. I'm so glad that you all you are here. And certainly, we didn't spend a lot of time talking about industry collaborations, but that's a great point that you've brought up. Um, there was kind of a technical question. Um, from Juan, you Lynn, what is the current capability of physical property logging of existing? Do any of you know the answer to that off the top? I would refer that question to the current operators at Texas, and we'll have the very latest facts and figures and specifications of current operations. Thank you. Just want to comment on the international. I think the I ODP model where joint. You know, a cooperative group of international scientists can propose expeditions is an interesting one. And, you know, perhaps that could be adopted to some extent in the. You know, but and more, more, more common in the academic fleet. For basic ocean graphics studies is something to think about as we as we move on to the next report. Thank you, Jen. There's a question here from, from Anthony poppers about the urgency of the. Of the science priorities that we listed ground keeping climate change on the geo hazards at what urgent timescales do you see the future of scientific ocean drone solution. I can start that answer. I think that the graph that I think Jim was showing, looking at CO2 versus time. Time scales that help inform. Those those models for the near future. I think are what we're looking for is where is where the committee was finding consensus. So looking at climate as well as ecosystem dynamic changes, how scientific ocean drilling can inform the modeling. That's projecting for, for the near future with the various scenarios. So I think that would be a reasonable. No, no, maybe Anthony is more asking about the urgency of the solution. Oh, my apologies. At what time scales do you see we need for a future on scientific ocean drilling solution. I think the urgency is real. Yes. Yeah, we were very careful and deliberate in defining vital and urgent that these were not. You know, just flip it. Oh, let's these are these are neat terms like this. This was given serious deliberation and urgency. Means what we think when we use that term urgent this this this has societal relevance and their critical issues facing society right now and in the very near future. Thank you. Kelly, there is this clarification about the leaps program leaps is a pilot project that will expire with this phase of I ODP. So thank you for that input. That is good to will not good to hear but that is important to absorb. And the report does include ideas around the leaps current leaps program. And so, or also maybe that can serve as a basis for potentially a future. I believe that we raised it as they funded leaps could be valuable. Yeah, there was a comment from John Orkut, and he has his hand raised, I think I can allow you to talk john so give it a try. Hi, John Orkut. Jim the odors there. We've worked on drilling programs for, for decades. My experience and stems are well to the left. One of the things that we can do now that was not possible before was moving real time data from the sea floor to people everywhere, literally that used to involve cables but anymore can be done with acoustics and acoustic to move data back and forth and actually command things remotely at the site itself. I'm a seismologist, so that's a geodesist. We have a lot of work going on in the oceans now with geodesy making periodic measurements along the Cascadia several, a few times each year to monitor movement and so on. But these kinds of technologies are available to the drilling program. And it probably should be. Well, it should be more apparent than it is. I haven't. I don't have a copy in the most recent report but I think that there are technologies that could be taken advantage of. If you had the capability. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, John that's a great point and I would just say that we in the report actually in the discussion of geohazards in particular we focused on this back not just in terms of looking at the geologic record of you know, you can get past events but really focusing also on the borehole observatories and their importance for informing. Monitoring of, for example, subduction zone systems in the future so I so that was that was highlighted in the report and I completely agree that that's a really important issue and it's obviously super societally relevant thinking about Cascadia and other subduction zone areas where you can get soon to nominogenic earthquake sequences. Yeah, thank you Mark. I know Kelly we just have a couple of minutes but there was a last question that came in just now that I do want to address since it relates to something I said earlier, regarding communication between IODP oceanographers and non IODP oceanographers, and I can give you an example for example. You know I learned that that some of the IODP data is important to ground true things C level rise projections. You know I'm not an IODP scientist but I am. My research pertains to modeling and projecting into the future. And when I looked that dove into the literature about, you know literature around C level rise modeling. I saw some evidence that IODP data was taken into consideration, but it felt like there was a lot more potential there. And so that tells me that we need to make sure that that the data that's collected and the information that's shared that we really communicate that across that, you know, seemingly short divide, but nonetheless that that that information really gets brought to bear on the the projections that we currently are relying on. I think I think I personally think we can do. We can do more in that in that realm. And if anyone wants to add to that or subtract from that please feel free. Yeah, I just see if I can add to that. And this is a very personal perspective just want to put that bear, but Jason you're a perfect example of someone who does both. But our understanding from listening to a lot of the comments that we have gotten and the presentations we heard was that IODP science is IODP science, and everything else is everything else. And it's that crosstalk, you know, so the same person does both, but it seems like that crosstalk is what might be improved and that's essentially what we're trying to get at with that recommendation. Yeah, and I think it was a really, really good thing to have that special issue of oceanography about IODP I mean that's that's all that journals Tim tends to be read by people working in the modern ocean and to see the summary of some of the IODP IODP findings was really a positive thing to help with the communication. Alright. And thank you everyone. There are a couple more comments. Jamie Austin I see your comments about communicating your city Congress, we have that up to tomorrow. So thank you for that. And thanks everyone for all the thoughtful questions. We are now out of time for a minute over. I apologize for that. And thanks for joining us today. Thanks to Ben Jen for talking through this and the committee for being on the line to help us questions. As you read the report if you have other questions feel free to reach out to me, we are still available. And we're still doing a lot of work towards that larger reports so the communication doorway is open. And just again, thank you for your attention today and have a wonderful Wednesday. Thanks everybody.