 exchange that I'll try to facilitate excellent and we appear to some attendees appear to be coming in. In addition to the panelists Kelly do we start out with a little bit of a overview of what this committee is about. Yes. Yeah, let me just give a little context for sorry. That light is very blinding a little context for folks that are new to the academies and our processes. So, first of all, thanks for joining us today. So today is the first meeting of the committee of the decadal survey of ocean sciences for NSF and NSF is our sponsor. So when we start a new study, we like to start with a sponsor briefing to hear more about the context and importance of that study, and also hear the sponsors perspective on what is and isn't included in the statement of task. And at the end of that discussion the committee staff and sponsor should all be on the same page on the committee's charge. So, as as Tuba mentioned Jim McManus is here today to provide the briefing, and, and then before he starts I'll provide a few, a few slides and information about our process, so that everybody, everybody on this call is on the same page. So first for those 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. Next slide please. So, the slide lists are our committee we've assembled a committee of 21 volunteers who were chosen for their expertise and experienced and they serve pro bono to carry out this study statement of task. You'll notice at the top it says provisional. That is provisional until we have our discussion later today so some people on the line may have seen that we had a 20 day public comment period after posting the committee membership. So this afternoon we will consider the comments presented, and we will discuss as a committee. As there any expertise that we're missing anything we need to fill. If we are missing something will say, or do we need another committee member do we need to committee members can we get that expertise by bringing in speakers and that kind of thing so we'll we'll discuss all of the input that we've received we appreciate all the comments. And after those decisions will make will fill any any fill in any spots that we need to fill. And then after that point, the committee would be finalized. So right now we are provisional, and we'll have that discussion later today. Next slide please. So Jim will talk more about this so I won't say much about the committee's tasks divided into parts. First focus on scientific ocean drilling and look at you know what are the big research priorities that remain that require scientific ocean drilling to answer, and then at the same time we'll be looking at the full report. Next slide, where we have five other bullets for the statement of task really designing a portfolio of scientific questions for NSF and identifying the infrastructure needed and the different types of collaborations and and the kind of the workforce needed to actually carry out that work. So Jim will be talking a lot more about that so I'm going to fly through those. And then timeline, some of the questions that we get early on as you know when can we expect the report out next slide please. So, we are in the beginning of a two year study so over the course of two years the committee will hold a total of five two day hybrid meetings such as this one for the purposes of public information gathering deliberation report writing in response to peer review. The committee will also meet virtually each month to keep things moving. And then the result of the work will be two peer reviewed reports that represent the consensus view of the committee. So the interim report will be the first of those which is focused on scientific ocean drilling priorities and that will be released towards the end of this year. And then the final report which will incorporate the findings and conclusions from the interim will then be released in early 2025. Next slide please. And lastly, you can find the committee statement of task, the committee bios and information on past and upcoming meetings on the project web page. This is all public information, and I will post the link to that web page in the chat and just a second. So, welcome Jim. Jim is serving as the director of the division of ocean sciences at NSF. He's our committee's sponsor contact and we're really excited to discuss a statement of task with him today so the floor is yours now Jim. Thank you Kelly. And thank you for having me here to talk with you about the next to Cato survey for NSF's division of ocean sciences, as Kelly said my name's Jim McManus, and I'm the division director for the division of ocean sciences. Before going on I want to say in advance. Thank you to this committee. You've all signed up for a large task. I hope that was communicated. And, but it, but to the basic research enterprise, it's an incredibly important task, and one that your message back to us from the community is one we will take quite seriously so the value of the conversation that you will have over the next year and a half. We'll, we'll help us communicate as a division going forward within the National Science Foundation and back outward to our community. Next slide. So why did we ask for this study to answer that question I first want to point you to our mission and ours, meaning the National Science Foundation. NSF promotes the progress of science by investing in research to expand knowledge and science, engineering, and education. NSF also invests in actions that increase the capacity of the US to conduct and exploits such research. Part of how we go about our decision making process is through community input. We don't operate in a vacuum. One way we accomplish that is through our peer review process process that many of you have heard me before have heard. I'm most proud of here in the United States. But we also need regular input through a variety of other mechanisms next slide please. These other mechanisms include through Congress and the Executive Office of the President interactions with other agency partners community input, such as that which will occur during the process of developing this to Cato survey and other workshops, professional society reports and the various advisory committees that work with us within the National Science Foundation. Combined inputs have provided a number of focus areas within the broader geosciences which you can see on the right of the slide there. But include topics like climate inner which include topics like climate intervention, geologic or climate hazards new technologies and the need for new research infrastructure. Next slide please. The more detail or perhaps to be pedantic. The new decadal survey will provide recommendations for OCE considering changing the changing scientific landscape, national priorities and emerging opportunities. Next slide please. What we want from a new decadal survey is for our science to remain nimble and consider issues of timeliness urgency societal benefit and technological advances that create new opportunities to address our most pressing issues. This is a big ask, but it is how we will focus on the critical role of the ocean in the broader earth system. Next slide please. Under the broad umbrella of what we are looking for we need to continuously query the question, what research infrastructure is needed to advance the high priority ocean science research questions over the coming decades. And I really want to emphasize the plural of decades. We invest in research that although this decadal survey is by name a decadal survey, 10 years, we really think in terms of our investments as being more like 25 to 50 years in terms of our infrastructure. Many of you know are the ships that we support extend well beyond 10 years, although we have three new ones coming online in the coming year or so. As I wrote on the slide, without the right tools, we will not be able to advance our science to its fullest potential, and we will run the risk of not meeting society's greatest needs. Next slide please. I want to make the point that we need to identify opportunities and strategy in this report to promote innovative multi disciplinary and multi sectorial approaches to address complex science challenges arising from the intersection of natural processes, societal needs and human driven environmental change. What this somewhat long winded sentence okay it is not somewhat it was long winded is getting at is that many of the world's problems really go well beyond what single disciplinary approaches can deliver. As you think about how to approach this charge. I ask you to consider the extensive work laid out under the ocean climate action plan as an example, which is a whole of government approach to addressing the oceans role in climate mitigation and adaptation challenges, and many other community or government efforts that focus on society's grand challenges, and how we, as the NSF supported basic research enterprise can best rise to help with those challenges. We also want to hear about in how innovation. We also want to hear about innovation and how we can train the next generation of ocean scientists expand our research and ocean literacy and become a scientific community that honors the principles of diversity equity inclusion environmental justice and accessibility into our scientific endeavors. Next slide please. In the construct of this report there are multiple important questions for you all to keep in the back of our minds of your minds as we move forward. How do we balance our infrastructure with the science we do within a constrained budgetary environment. What another way of saying this is, please be pragmatic. We are key science priorities for the future and why. How do we meet the needs of advancing marine technology. Who are the key partners we should engage with and why. How can our science be more impactful to the broader community at home and abroad. By the way, the end why matters to us. What the report most effective is for it to be a visionary in the work we do. What the report needs to not be is a list of detailed well articulated scientific questions. Our core programs will continue to support innovative and visionary science. But we also need to hear from the broad community about priorities. At some point, a list of priorities is no longer a list of priorities by virtue of the fact of its length. I don't have a straightforward answer for you to what that length is. But bear in mind it's short to the science community I asked that you come to the various community gatherings with visionary intent. I ask you where does basic oceanographic research need to lead over the next 10 to 25 years to the community to the committee. I asked that you see yourself as listeners to the community and not as advocates for a portion thereof. Next slide please, which you advance. One more. Thank you. One of the things I just want to spend a couple of minutes on is our asked for an interim report on scientific ocean drilling. NSF supported scientific ocean drilling has long has a long near 50 year history within the oceanographic community. The last 20 years in particular NSF, along with international partners have been supporting scientific ocean drilling through two 10 year agreements with the most recent agreement coming to a close at the end of the federal fiscal year 2024. These activities have resulted in a broad network of authors, a program related journal articles, the figure to the right is from 2023 to 2021. The life of scientific ocean drilling this research has made foundational discoveries that have changed the way we think about a variety of earth, ocean and climate related issues. Next slide please. One more please. Okay, one more. Thank you. Today's resolution is and has been the most utilized of the three international ocean, international ocean discovery program assets, which includes the Japanese drilling vessel to check you and a portfolio of mission specific platforms supported in partnership with the European consortium of ocean research drilling. The best supported activities have included roughly five expeditions on the jr per year scientific participation on partner platforms as seen on the slide and sample curation and community leadership. Non binding partnerships between the NSF and international partners have been documented through a variety of memoranda and offered the structure of these agreements, pretty much for the last two decades. Next slide. Do you advance. Nope. Thanks. With the close of the current agreement at the end of fiscal year 2024 we are faced with some new challenges in the scientific drilling enterprise. One, the joities resolution has been the most utilized of these three assets, however, as the current iodp agreement comes to an end international support which we've relied on to keep jr operations going has declined with little commitment post fiscal year 2024 for future international funding support. At 45 years old, the joities as a resolution is approaching the end of its useful life. The US needs to build a vision. And this is your, your task is both the community and a, and a committee is to build a vision for the future of scientific ocean drilling supported within the United States. Next slide please. With these financial and logistical challenges OCE has decided not to renew the current cooperative agreement which supports the current operations of the jr and ends at the end of fiscal year 2024. OCE is discussing how to support an effective and financially sustainable US led scientific ocean drilling program, while balancing long term OCE community programmatic priorities over the next 10 to 25 years. NSF is committed to maintaining access to us owned cores and the associated data archives for its community. Some report will include discussion of scientific ocean drilling priorities that will guide the growth of the next generation of the scientific ocean drilling enterprise supported within the US. Under this growth scientific ocean drilling objectives will need to be matched to available technologies. We also need to reimagine the methods of scientific ocean drilling and develop a portfolio of possible sub seabed sampling approaches that are targeted at our most urgent scientific priorities. This portfolio of approaches will inform how we invest in future infrastructure. To attend into these needs I want to point to two upcoming events. The first is an imminent announcement of an actually it, it came out this morning of an upcoming town hall which will be hosted by the US science support program. And that's on July 6, I believe at two o'clock in the afternoon. So with that I want to sort of close the loop for now on the on the activities for August 2nd and third associated with ocean drilling and bring us back to the larger umbrella of why we're here today. Next slide, which is I want, I want to bring us back to the variety of urgent needs that are in front of us, not only as a committee and, and as a nation, but as as, as the world. These are issues that have been discussed throughout geo over the past year, and they're continuously discussed issues, not only at NSF but throughout the halls of our institutions. And in the particular case of the sort of cloud of words these are directorate wide priorities that are taking form to varying degrees and to varying degrees OCE will be part of these. I want to call out in particular climate intervention hazards and extreme events critical minerals and new technologies. The last to you is, are there particularly impactful elements within these topics where OCE can most make a scientific impact. And if so, what are the key challenges, we will need to overcome. And with that, next slide. I will stop and take any questions that folks may have. Thank you for your time and attention. Thank you, Jim. So, we're going to be raising our virtual hands. So please raise your hands, and we'll call on the order of hands raised. If we have time left, we can also take a question or two from from the participants, you may submit your questions or comments using the Q&A function. Right. In fact, we encourage that even if we don't have time to answer them it's good to know what the questions are that the general public brings. I see that there are 42 attendees so that's great thank you for making the time you all to be part of the discussion. Yes. Thank you. So the first question is from Allison. Thanks for that Jim, could you give a more detailed update on the status of the research vessels that you mentioned will be finished soon. Sort of. So the, and I'm looking to to because last week both to but I were, were visiting the shipyard where they're, they're being built so the Tony, which is the first ship is currently in the water so from the exterior it, it looks very much like a brand new ship from the inside it looks like a ship that's not finished being built. And that's not really your question Allison but the short story is that we have been given some reasonable insurers and assurances that we could still meet a spring 2024 delivery. There's probably some amount of realistic expectation that it that it could slide a little later than that. And what I will say is there's reasonable optimism. These two events are disconnected but there's reasonable optimism that the subsequent two vessels will follow in four month increments after the Tony being the first one is delivered. So that, that, you know, sort of puts us somewhere in in early 2025 for having the three vessels to bid that I captured all that about right. All right. Thank you. Jim was next. Yeah, oh sorry, Jim Yoder. Yeah, it's on. Yeah, I just two quick clarification questions out one is should this should this committee be considering research in the in the polar regions or is that sort of polar programs issue not not ours and and that yeah that that's one question. And I had one other clarification question. I think the, the short answer is that's largely under polar programs purview, the more nuanced and and sort of vague answer is, is envisioning thinking about how OCE might interact with polar programs we do. I think you know so, so not to draw the very clear boundary if you will between what OCE does an OP fee does because we do have interactions across those divisions. And then one other one other clarification one has to do with ocean grilling it. The second point. Ask that. What questions of the unanswered questions what could be addressed through the use of existing scientific drilling assets including the archives and existing platforms by existing platforms that would that include piston cores and long cores, non drilling ways to collect cores. Yes Jim to that partially. There's, but the more complete answer is, there are other ways. They're seafloor. There's a seabed drill seabed drill rigs. There's, there's commercially contracted drilling vessels, and, and the mission specific platforms that ecord supports are a swath, if you will have of industry vessels, or platforms that that have supported drilling in in the over the past 10 to 20 years. All right, thank you, Brad. I'm ran. Morning Jim. Thanks for the presentation. I wondered if it came up before you're in the room here. The last to cattle service you know was driven to a significant extent the balance research versus core science. I don't know what that number is right now I asked that before and maybe you could comment on that. I think the next is the needles tick back to the infrastructure. Taking more of the pie feel like that. So that's a specific question but also I like to see that this workforce word is in here. And for this group and broadly the workforce for ship operations. Maybe you want to comment on that and cyber security because we have ships tied up at docs right now that should be sailing and so this is a key. And challenge that is not that obvious to the community perhaps certainly ones that are not using chips. Thanks. So, I'll adjust the workforce one first. So, I very much want workforce at the forefront of your minds. We, we inside OCE think about it all the time. This is a relatively new program that that NSF supports that that supports this particular sector of the of the workforce. The reality is and you know this Brad probably even better or certainly as well as I do that that we're also in, in a high competition market. And so, how, how do we, we are listening to ideas for how we approach that that challenge it's it's a real challenge. And you forgive me but I forgot your first question already the balance between research and infrastructure. Yeah, if you. So, we're a little bit weighted towards facilities but not far from 5050. I would say that that there were a number of decisions made before my time in OCE that that brought those the facilities and science closer to in line. It also depends on how you count it because our traditional facilities are our ships drilling and OI. But there are other facility infrastructure pieces that we've that we fund that are that are smaller than that that don't necessarily counted with the large facilities. So you could quibble about the 5050 but it's it's really not that far off, I would say that we've gotten that message. I think, unless you're going to this committee and and our scientific community want to drastically change that message. I don't see that as being an emphasis of this decadal survey it was very much was an emphasis as you said Brad it was very much an emphasis of the prior decadal survey, I don't expect that this time around. Simply because I don't expect something completely dramatically different. Yeah. I thank you for the report that you gave us to get us off the ground. I've got a couple of questions related to the interim report and I guess some of the language in it. One question is about defining the high priority research questions and the 2050 science framework that was developed by the community was, I believe very intentional and not laying it out as questions but as scientific objectives, and longer term initiatives. So, are you envisioning that that you know that would be one of the reports we'd be drawing from so we would be kind of recrafting the messaging in a question format. So that's one, one question for you and then a related one is, what is the relationship between the questions for them the interim report and the goal for concise overarching ocean science questions in the final report. So, thank you. So two, two, two comments so at the risk of forgetting the first question that the, the overarching question, it is what to do about questions that sounds starting to sound silly right. And I have to admit that as I was going through. So this is full disclosure as I was going through the tasks. It occurred to me that that word was probably the single most problematic word, because it's the vaguest word in in essentially in the charge. There does not have to be question marks at the end of of priority areas from from our perspective in fact, if you think about it as probably one of the, I hate to put it this way, but what we need right now and I've said is not once but we really want a laundry list of questions and so then you're stuck with what do you want we really want priority areas for inquiry where OCE can have its the largest impact. And when I say the largest impact that's impact on the scientific enterprise and impact for the people in the US. And so you, you have a recording, I said it, don't get hung up on the questions term please that that that would, like I said I realized that somewhat misleading, and that actually bleeds into your first question very much, which is thinking about the challenge inside of ocean drilling space is that we need to think time scale. It's not exactly true that it could take a couple decades to build new scientific drilling research vessel, but I'll be very realistic. That that's the kind of time scale you're talking about the three ships that I talked about so I was a, I was a rotator at NSF 15 years ago, we were talking about those ships then. And that wasn't the, and I'm looking over at Jim that wasn't the first. The first conversation so that there are ways to speed up that clock but but to think that we could speed up that clock in five years is we're not operating in in real. So it's the challenge of thinking about the health of the ocean drilling enterprise for the next 20 years. That's really what what we need to do. And how do we wed those. Those priorities with the practical reality of the of the technologies we have at hand, and what can we do to help. Long winded answer, sorry. All right, thank you. Jim, this is a slightly more, I guess, how do you do it question curious know if we can expand a little bit more on what I personally see as infinite contradiction between being nimble and planning for 25 to 50 years that you mentioned. So just curious know what it is that you're looking for there. A really good question to G. So nimble means we don't, to me, it means we don't over constrain what we do to the point where we're locked into essentially OCE is locked into a set of priorities that that that we don't have the bit, the ability to respond to new ones. And practical reality is it is is our job meaning at mine and my colleagues at NSF to make sure we don't do that. So, a G another way of saying that is, we still want, or we still intend very much intend to have a very nimble core program enterprise that that is who we are we are. We are the federal government's basic research enterprise in the ocean realm, and we take a great deal of pride in that so the word nimble was placed there to remind me to remind us all that we still belong in that space. This isn't, we're not, we're not looking to turn ourselves into a mission agency that that's not who we are who we want to be is a little bit of walking a walking a line, but, but I think you think that made sense. Thank you, Brad DeYoung. Hey Jim thanks for thanks for being here. So I wanted to kind of get your reaction or perspective on on one aspect of this overall study because if we think of the science that we're talking about environmental science. We can focus on the specifics of how to do the science and which are the best questions to ask, but there's also the approach and the strategy to kind of developing the study of it. And, you know, if you touch any part of the planet now it ripples across the whole planet and that's true both environmentally and also societally the things we do touch much more widely than we had thought of and did in the past. And so in thinking about that the question then is how we as a group might best provide advice or input around how, how to build those new strategies or approaches. I mean in a, in a disciplinary sense you can talk about you know transdisciplinary and you know collaborative and multi disciplinary and all those things and I think that's in a space which we're all comfortable with, but in a partnership space. It's not so much more complicated because there are many more players in place now than was true decades ago, private sector partners, NGOs, you know foundations that put large amounts of money in particular areas. Unfortunately we have the ocean decade for sustainable development and there's just endless kind of coordination and collaboration there. So the question that I was looking for you to comment on that's the background was, you know, how do you see us best providing guidance or, you know, to NSF and then just broadly how does NSF see itself in this kind of unfortunately in a sense it's a good and a bad story in terms of being complicated but potentially much more productive landscape. So the questions aren't getting easier. So, there's two, there's two pieces of the answer so how do we build trying to think of whether I should start with this sort of default where I keep referring to the second question first. So I'll do that here as well. Your question, I'm going to rephrase what I what I think I heard which is how do we be most effective in in interagency and if you will outside of the agency space as a as a fundamental research enterprise. And I think. And then your first question is how do we build that strategy. And I think part of the answer to both is remind ourselves who we are. So, and if you will, I feel bear an example, and I don't like using examples in this particular context because it creates rabbit holes. But, but think about marine carbon dioxide removal. There is clearly space where we as an agency. We're trying to bear quite a bit of basic research, know how and query that will address the consequences, if you will, of marine carbon dioxide research, or the mechanisms for how one might best do that. There are folks in the philanthropic world in other agencies that are approaching marine carbon dioxide research in quite frankly in very different ways and I think that's the what you're referring to as the good news bad news is that that's what's happening. And so, and I'm using marine carbon dioxide research on purpose because it's something that is very topical, we've been, we inside the foundation have been thinking about it. You, you all as a community have been thinking about it. So, it's now to your question about. So, before I leave in our agency space. So we work a lot. Somebody asked me, I've been asked multiple times what do you do all day. One of the things that I do all day is communicate and I communicate outside of the agency quite a bit and it's hard space to work because you're bringing together agencies that have very different identities and how they approach science. But what I would say is I am, I am buoyed by the desire for others to work inside interagency space to make progress. So that's sort of big umbrella language. We do it, we want to continue to do it and we want to look for avenues to expand that perhaps even into fill in philanthropic space in ways. How do you build a strategy that is attendant to our strengths. That's your first question, or that's my version of your first question. And that's constantly reminding ourselves to think about what we're good at. Marine CDR hat. It's sort of one of these things that it's that's a big. It's a big can of unknowns. So let's think about a strategy for how we, as the basic research as NSF's basic research community can engage in that space and what it is we can bring to the table for our community of researchers that would allow sort of effective leveraging of other opportunities and making headway in space where we're the right folks to do that work. So, again, that's pretty high level, but, but I'm trying to say that we need, we need your wisdom us that we need your wisdom to help us think about how we best build a strategy, and let us, I mean, let us worry about how we interact with interagency and other partners. I mean, that's we need to do that. But I'm going to stop there was that helpful. No, it's good. It's good to hear I spent about a decade trying to coordinate basin scale funding between NSF and circ in Canada, and the European Commission, and it was banging heads against walls for a lot of that time I suspect though and that's a question that there's a perspective that we need to look for new ways to doing these things. And we can't just say well we don't have a mechanism to share funding or we can't do this about which was kind of the reactions we got to this 20 years ago. I don't think that's the first reaction you get anymore. It's much more likely you'll get well this is going to be a little bit of a headache but once we get through it will be in a better place. I probably wasn't supposed to say it that way but it's true. All right, thank you. Tuba. So I have two questions related to the differences between the statement of tasks last time and this time and I'll ask them one at a time. And as you know last statement of task for the, the Decadal Survey Committee really started with at high level scientific questions and that's certainly a question you're asking us to you know tell us the high priority scientific issues that need to be addressed. But when I read our statement of task I'm also seeing that you're asking us some wisdom and strategies around things like how do we stay nimble, or a strategy to promote innovative multi disciplinary multi sectoral approaches. So tell me a little bit more about where that's coming from. What is it that you all are soul searching around that's making you ask us that question. And then I'll ask my second one after that. Thanks Tuba. This is a little bit going back to what Brad was just asking so the soul searching is the language that's used in the statement of tasks is what I, it's really hard to ask these big to answer the big questions with hard specifics. But when I wrote those and rewrote them. It's, I'm trying to bring the thought process up up a level thinking that there's a lot of things that we already do inside the program that are. We know how to do that. And, and we know how to do a lot of the other things. But part of nimble, even though part of nimble is being small, but part of nimble is also being able to communicate, as, as Brad was asking, across agencies and what I would say is we're better at that than we used to be and, and I don't mean we as an NSF, I mean we as the, as the federal family, we're simply better at those conversations. And honestly, there, there's more sense of purpose for why we, we want to do certain things, you know marine carbon dioxide research is, is a great example of, of something that that showed up on the streets, back in the fall, the solicitation went out a bunch of proposals came in, I maybe miss speaking but there was something like seven federal agencies involved with with funding parts of that. And that's something we can do that that's actually relatively considering working in interagency space that that was pretty straightforward, partly because the ocean community has a mechanism. The knob is national ocean partnership program is is facilitates exactly what we're talking about. It's not easy space to sort of work together but this presents an opportunity and it's been used, I want to say 25 years. So it's been around a long time and to varying degrees NSF has been a partner inside that mechanism so I don't know that I've actually really gotten to your first quite so might be better if we ask me multiple questions at once and I sort of drift between the answers. The second question is related so you're allowed to drift. You mentioned earlier that the first report, one overarching thing that was in the mind of NSF at that time was, you know, what's the right investment strategy between infrastructure and research. Right now, what is the equivalent of that question in you all's mind, what's keeping you up at night. One of the things that that one of the things that keeps us up at night is honestly the climate problem and how we as as an agency and best facilitate our communities to be impactful in that space. It's, it's very real to all of us. And so that's to be asked what keeps you up at night that keeps me up at night. That and early flights. But that's the answer. I mean, it's, it is more nuanced than that and there's more to it. But the climate problem cascades to things like climate hazards, coastal resilience. You know, I can sort of walk through a set of if you will, common buzzwords that we have all developed to develop a common language, but the big one is, there's a very real threat. We don't even know that we fully appreciate the threat, let alone how we contribute to moving the needle on on that threat, whether that's through mitigation or adaptation. That's it. Thank you and thank you Jim for getting up in the middle of the night to be with us today. The next questions from Peter. First, thank you Jim for being here and sharing your perspective with us. It's really useful. I've noticed that several recent funding opportunities across the NSF have this bent towards outlying basic research and applied research, the creation of the tip directorate the first new directorate in 30 years. I think hints at this growing desire to seek out opportunities for outlying basic and applied research. So I'm, I'm generally curious to hear your thought on what this trend, if I can call it a trend means for basic research within the OCE and how you all might see what we do. How we might actually go about supporting basic research and then how that relates to this movement towards outlying basic and applied research. Thank you. Thanks Peter. At the risk of word smithing. What I would say is, rather than using the term applied research. There's a, I prefer the term use inspired research and the difference. There's a spectrum basic and applied where use inspired sort of sits in between. The name is failing me for the individual that that sort of came up with that a long time ago. But if you think about, I'm just going to continue using my example of marine carbon dioxide research. So there are basic research questions in underneath that umbrella that very much. Are you inspired that they would be to move the needle on atmospheric carbon dioxide. By engaging the oceans. So that's where I think our community if you will. It's not that we never do applied research we do our community can do applied research it's there's a spectrum. And where we are most effective as a broader community is looking for that that that if you will that basic research to use inspired research which is a another way of thinking about that is very targeted basic research, if you will. And so, is that sort of helpful to your question Peter. I'll add on solicited the, the rise of tip. As a new directorate and and what I will say and so at the time the task list went out, rise, which is a new division within the geo directorate, which also is is attendant to some of the principles inside tip was has has been stood up so that was in April, I want to say April 24 of this year was, it was stood up as a division. And so, this is a much longer answer to your question Peter but there's a recognition inside the foundation that there's, we're very much a basic research organization. What does use inspired look like, and then it, moving all the way over to to if you will tip is how can the foundation and the tip directorate get us to very much an end product in the innovation space, if you will. And so there's a, if you will there is an, and that very much bleeds into applied and applied work or or an outcome, a specific outcome. And so NSF is a different organization today than it was 30 years ago, or so, when, when I started. So, that's the answer is, is we are, we as an agency are very much thinking about the breath, if you will, or the spectrum of things that we do not divorcing ourselves from the sort of fundamental principle that we are an agency that works in this space non mission space and we're not only happy there we see ourselves as needing to be there for the scientific enterprise basic research discoveries lead quite often to different places that we need to go. And it's so it's really expanding the portfolio Peter, as the way I see it more than anything else. Thank you, Rick. Hey Jim, thanks for joining us today. Can you guys hear me okay in there. Yes. Great, thanks. Two questions about scientific ocean drilling, just because it's the first thing on our immediate horizon here. There's a conversation about cost, obviously, particularly in the on M space, and I'm wondering about the capitalization aspect. And of course I understand that NSF can only respond to input and community enthusiasm or lack thereof. But in that mindset. When seeking either alternative platform approaches, or a new single platform approach. Is there an appetite for MREF, MREFC scale pursuing MREF of C scale investments in scientific ocean drilling, and a potentially allied question. Two of you at once here to questions at once, but a potentially a live question is, do you envision any opportunities with tip by potentially being engaged in the drilling conversation at large. Thanks. So, Rick. Thank you for the question. The easiest way, or one of the easiest ways to think about, you know, the 10 to 20 year problem is, we need to build infrastructure that is as nimble as it can be, and as cost effective to operate as it can be. So that that that that's not very specific, but, but there's examples in the drilling community of building a very large vessel that is too expensive to operate. And we need to avoid that and member if you will. So what I'm telling you is that, no, MREFC is not is not off the table. We do need to figure out what some that what a platform might look like, and what it would cost to operate it. And so that that's that is the, that is the pragmatic reality of where we are. Yeah, that makes that makes sense. You don't want to be making a, you know, a big, a big old MREFC investment to build something you just can't operate either financially or structurally or whatever. Yeah, I got it. Yep, that makes sense. And then tip. I think there's opportunities there. I think as we progress towards defining better what it is we seek those conversations could grow. Right now, I, right now I don't exactly know what I would show up at the door of of our colleagues and tip with, but I'm a firm believer that everything's on the table until until we have all the data other what that that contradicts that. Yeah, got it. Thanks for those answers generally appreciate it. Thank you, Josie. Hi Jim and thanks for your comments this morning they're really helpful. And thank you in particular for your comment about climate. Because I was a bit surprised not to see that more upfront and center in statement of intent because that is clearly what keeps me up at night, even though I'm not going to solve it myself. So my question actually builds on to maybe a very simple question for you to answer but it. We were told to look carefully at the statement intent and ask you clarifying questions and so I was curious about the term sustainable blue economy. And then, and if that was narrowing our charge, I was thinking more about community impact and societal impacts and so I was just wondering if you could discuss that a little bit. Yeah, thanks for that. So the, the comment about the blue economy is more example than it is specific charge as this goes back to Peter's question, and to really keep us thinking about how the ocean enterprise might interact in inspired use space or help us get to inspired space if you will. There are our communities, the marine community has been active in the blue economy space. Is there is there a space for us there in a way that that would offer leverage that we're not seeing just yet. And so, and I don't. Honestly, I don't know the answer to that question. But, but that's, that's where it's coming from so not narrow but it's part of a portfolio of, of if you will, things to think about. Thank you, Jim Yoder. Yeah I had just another clarifying question about tip is there is there now now you now rises on the table as well which is maybe a little bit more confused than it was. So is there an example now of OCE interacting with tip or interacting with rise that that that would help help us understand how that partnership might work in the future. I'll talk in generalities but for example, we meeting OCE recently. So this is one of those. This is an example but it's not Jim. OCE recently recently partnered with multiple directorates across the foundation in in developing underwater technologies and tip wasn't part of that so tip. If for those of you don't know it's only been around just a little over a year. So those conversations predate tip. And of course I took the opportunity to show some of my colleagues in tip I said, you know, I think this is kind of space where we ought to be working together and he said absolutely I wish you had wish this had been brought to me. A year ago it well a year ago it was three years into development. So, but, but I think what that does is, is develop an example where tip would be a natural partner. In developing that and so those conversations happen now and are ongoing, but they're all very much nascent is what I would say. So as opportunities come up from in and I'll say from inside the broader geo directorate, rather than just just OCE that that. Yeah. So, there's definitely played space for us to work with tip and our colleagues in tip or happy to listen to. And so, and you could suggest some is that that I get it all, I get it all and yeah. Sure, or clarification when you say you work with tip is that like you get a proposal that's technology related and then you fund some of it and they fund some of it or does the collaboration look different than that. I'll answer the question somewhat hypothetically Allison. So it could go that way but what I would say working with tip really means is as we're building as we take community input. And as we're discussing ways in which we might accomplish a particular technology development for research underwater. If there's a space for an all just sort of random pieces of example. So we want to reach out to that makes the most sense across the foundation to work with sometimes it can be. There would be and this is now just sort of general. This is the way it can work. There's other ways to but sometimes you can directorates can share funding on a proposal sometimes there can be a common solicitation where funding might be funding one of the proposals or two of the proposals inside of a solicitation. There's multiple ways you can go about that and what I would say is, let us worry about those specifics because those are really conversations that we have across the foundation. There's a lot of really good people that have done really good work and I'm always impressed that the different ways that the directorates interact to support work. So it varies a lot. Don't labor yourself with that you, you've got a full plate. Thank you. I'm letting folks that we haven't heard from yet skip the line so she me you're next. Thank you Jim for answering our many many questions so. When I was preparing for this meeting I was reading the last the sauce meeting and then also looking at the climate action plan and the UN and I was struck by, you know, how far those those recent plans the climate action plan and the climate action plan was, you know, reflects how far the nation has come in terms of diversity, and the inclusion of multiple knowledge systems, especially Biden Harris, claiming, you know, using local knowledge systems to inform our decisions and looking at the previous decade, you know the DSOS meeting. I mean, while there's amazing, you know priorities outlined there there is hardly any mention of humans and local knowledge inclusion in that and co production of knowledge. Yes. My question, you know is what is NSF and ocean stance on, you know and talking about these blurred lines between basic and applied science, you know, of of how to walk the walk, not just talk to talk and what is our charge in inclusion, you know, of those local knowledge systems towards diversity. There's multiple ways to answer that question what is your charge to the committee. And so the simple answer, which is probably the least informative answer is as so inside the foundation what I will say is, and inside the federal family. We, and I will say the ocean climate action plan is a really good example where reaching out to local communities and gathering local knowledge was very much part of the, the backbone if you will have of articulating the vision going forward. I can say lots of those conversations have happened. There's folks inside the federal government that went and met with indigenous communities. History will really tell tell us how good we are at it. And what I will say is the first place we need to be to make a change is to recognize that we need to make a change. And I think we are very much there inside the scientific enterprise. And so now I'm going to expand to keep thinking about a diverse community of stakeholders in the oceanographic community. We're a fairly narrow group of folks. And what we want to do is broaden that and suggestions and wisdom from this committee and from the community that you will interact with will be taken quite seriously because we it was, to be honest, I think about the first three or four things that were hot off the presses when I walked in last July 17. That was one of the things that we were talking about quite a bit and and how to be better at it. I don't have the magic solution. But but it's something that is very much present in our thinking. I don't know if that was too big to be Thanks for that. Thanks for being here. So kind of to jump off of that a little bit. My question is about the second item on incorporating diversity of principles of diversity equity inclusion environmental justice. I know that this is not anything general. In fact, I think sometimes broader impact can be almost a cliche with NSF right. So it's not new in the community is not new and NSF but can you talk a little bit about some of the lessons learned and trying to implement this within other divisions at NSF and kind of from those lessons you've learned what are some threads that you'd like to kind of see us continue to pull on or again getting back to kind of the cliche point things that we could pass avoid or emphasize less. Yeah. I've been there just long enough to be dangerous with my answer how's that the threads to really pull on. This probably this might not be how you mean this but one of the one of the more effective things we can do. I think is as both as a division as a director at night. When I think of us as a director I think of ourselves as all of geo and all of the problems we have in front of us are geo problems. What I think we can probably make strides or make inroads on is diversifying the institutions that come to or that identify as playing a major role in the oceanographic research enterprise. So I think that's over the shorter term. That's probably one of the things we we can do and that that's that's some that's in our NSF's wheelhouse how we do that is we will make efforts and we will seek wisdom, but that's what I would say is the the a first step is we interact a great deal with the scientific community who are largely not exclusively act academic institutions. Sort of range from basic research institutions where faculty do very little teaching to much broader teaching portfolio institutions that have a smaller research portfolio. How do we engage with those communities. How do we bring, ultimately, if we're to diversify the oceanographic enterprise, the students that are at those institutions are the students that we're trying to reach. And so that's high priority that's we need to figure out how to reach the those institutions. Sadly, I think there's, there's examples of failures and there's examples of successes and we're trying to avoid the failures going forward. Part of it is recognizing going on with this part of it is recognizing that portfolio of what institutions of higher education do. They don't just do one thing. And so it's figure it's us figuring out us as a community figuring out how to engage more institutions where where people are. Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Jim for the presentation. Thanks for taking our grilling for the last hour and a half. I have two questions I'll ask them separate so keep it straight, building on this thread. You know, use inspired, you know, solution oriented multiple sectors multiple disciplines blue economy. My mind goes to coupled, not biogeochemical not bio physical but coupled social ecological systems. And I suspect the answer is probably similar way you said to Jim about the polar program but how much latitude do we have to come up with or come up with social or economic aspects of what we might suggest could happen, particularly in the impact space and I'll come back with my other questions. Yeah, I. I'm going to answer your question by telling you what I'm not trying to do. What I'm not trying to do is micromanage with the community, what the committee is doing with the community. So, with with that said, you know, so the, the first order answer is this is a platform for community input. So, sort of have at it, the boat, but I also want to say that the sort of goes back to as we think about how OCE and the scientists inside OCE interact with places they haven't traditionally in interacted with some of that's really incumbent upon us to figure it. So the message received is reasonable and we'll figure out how to make it to make it work. Does that make sense. It does and I hear, I hear what you're not saying is that the second question I have maybe is another way to get to tuba's point earlier we know what keeps you up at night. I want to know what's eating your lunch during the day, what top two or three things and what can we do to perhaps help address some of this. I don't think about it that way. So, when I think of sort of eating, eating our lunch, it's, there's a couple in exact answers to that question, you know, one of the, and I said this earlier so I'm going to, I'm going to leverage all this off of this. One of them is, frankly, disperse too many disperse priorities. So, we, we need to be careful. You know, quite frankly, we do we need, we need to think about the word priorities and what it really means and and how we can be most effective, keeping in mind that our core research exploratory research mission has to be protected inside of that, that sort of umbrella of things that we do, because there's opportunities there that we just don't know about. So that's, yeah, that that's sort of stumbling now whether and I've brought myself to an answer to your question but the other part of eating the lunch. So that's part of it is making a laundry list will eat, eat our lunch. The other part is, and this is related to Rick Murray's question a little bit, which is thinking about facilities so I, yes, I think about our facilities, pretty much daily, and, and the challenges we have in supporting an oceanographic research enterprise with its facilities I am we're always, we're always a bad day away from lunch, lunch getting eaten, if you will. So, so that's, we have really wonderful people inside the foundation that that worry far more about that, you know, they worry more about it than I do. Anyway, we're going to give a couple more new voices, a chance on Laila. Thank you. Thanks for being here and, and also for giving us clarity earlier about the, how we're developing this, this task list of these priority questions where NSF can have impact. I want to kind of stay in the conversation that we're in now and just point out on the task lift that that the work to identify those solutions based projects for societal needs, where it touches on equity access and justice endeavors that is held from the task about developing those priority science topics and I just wanted to get your perspective on, is this a call out to emphasize that as one of our priority topics, or is it a suggestion that it should be woven into each one of those priority topics because it is fundamental for us to create a fundamental shift in culture. It's woven. That's the shortest answer I will give for the rest of the day. Is that, is that Laila is that get, get to your question. Sometimes I do the. Thank you. Marcia. Going back to the interagency question. How much do you think that this committee should engage with other agencies, whether through the knob or through the sauce, for example, to help NSF define where they need to be with respect to that interagency collaboration. My first reaction is not. That's messy space and you'll. I don't think Marcia to be perfectly honest with you I don't think you will find it expedient or fruitful, if you will, it doesn't mean you can't talk to folks that operate under that umbrella but that's really are. That's really our side to worry about how to make that happen. It's a slightly short answer, but I think that's the answer. All right, thank you, Brad man. The lunch that is fine, but I'll make a real quick question. I've heard the interagency and one is DOE. So where as a community as this group, should we be thinking of DOE and MCDR and, you know, there's just so much opportunity and they got out of that oceans game other than renewables. They should be back in it. I'm sure NSF would agree. But any comment on DOE interagency efforts around ocean science that you might be able to speak to. Thanks, Jim. Brad before answering Brad's question. I have a hard stop at 1230 probably got other meetings after the head to Brad the. I think I can say, let's put it this way, I have very high confidence that DOE was involved with the MCDR solicitation. So, there's folks in DOE that are part of the meetings I've been in. They're, they're very much. You probably know this better than I Brad that DOE works and in pretty different space that than we do. But I think there's opportunity, there's continued opportunity for interaction. Again, I would say you don't need to be sort of blind to interagency possibilities but I really encourage folks to as much as possible stay out of trying to focus on those kinds of interactions. And we can find the interactions that that suit our needs because I can just assure you that those are rabbit holes of of your time. And that's, yeah. I do want to just kind of use the co chairs prerogative and jump in with with one last comment and and these last questions that we've been hearing about interacting with mission agencies. And we asked you a question and somebody use the word applied research and you kind of corrected it in a sense by talking about use inspired research and you've used that term a number of times. I just want to make sure this we as a committee are very clear NSF is a basic research entity, right. DOE now know all of those on our those are mission agencies right and NSF is perhaps the only basic research engine. And so I am hearing you say though that maybe we should consider the balance between curiosity driven research, basic research and use inspired basic research, but it's still basic research we are talking about is that clear. Is that so I'm seeing you nod. Yes. Yes. Excellent because I think that's important for this committee to think about, you know, we have a, we want to go into those applied directions but that's not necessarily NSF arena. Yeah, just just one quick comment from the other coach areas. Would it be fair to say that use inspired the hypothesis are developed by the PI, whereas applied research someone gives them the hypothesis and says go do this. No. Yeah, I wouldn't. I don't see it that way. And just because I've leaned on MCDR so much. I'm going to continue to lean on it. I think of a variety of problems, if you will, inside of using the oceans buffer capacity, if you will, that are basic research questions but they're very much use inspired that how we, how we scale that is where we're trying in that particular example to go to a scalable problem so that's the use inspired or we're trying to we're asking basic research questions around a potential use. Okay, Jim this was highly informative. We're so glad that you chose to come here and also come here in person to have this conversation with us. I hope you will be open to us asking you more questions as they arise as we're deliberating. Yes. But thank you, really, really appreciative. It was my pleasure. And I would say, thank me in about a year and a half. No, thank you in all sincerity thank you all for being willing to do this. It's a big job. And we've got a committee of folks that have a variety of experiences, and, and I just want to say thank you again and thanks for having me. And anytime you have questions. I'm happy to come back to the committee I only work, work down the road of a piece. And so, no problem. With that, I think we will close the webinar I thank all the participants from outside of the panel who