Spring Advisory Committee for Polar Programs Meeting

The Advisory Committee for Polar Programs provides advice and recommendations to the National Science Foundation concerning support for polar research, education, infrastructure and logistics, and related activities.

This event is part of OPP Advisory Committee Meeting.

Register to attend at https://nsf.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_mpStyxYzSqqq7ZY2QwN4yA. 

Minutes

Advisory Committee for Polar Programs (AC-OPP) 
Spring Meeting, March 24-25, 2022 
Meeting Held via Zoom

Summary

Action Items Arising from the Spring 2022 AC-OPP Meeting 

1. Items arose for possible inclusion in the agenda of the next AC-OPP meeting (fall 2022): 
   1. A subcommittee or similar vehicle for input on South Pole master planning. 
   2. Follow-up with the subcommittee on DEI 
   3. An ARV DCL letter. 2. Other action items: a) Polar cyber infrastructure 
2. Other action items: 
   1. Polar cyber infrastructure

Attendance and Membership 

AC-OPP Members Present: 

• Dr. Meredith Nettles, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Chair, AC-OPP 
• Dr. Douglas H. Bartlett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego 
• Dr. Aron L. Crowell, University of Alaska, Anchorage 
• Dr. Ryan E. Emanuel, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University 
• Dr. Patrick Heimbach, Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin 
• Dr. Allyson Hindle, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Life Sciences 
• Mr. Steve Iselin, U.S. Navy (Ret), Iselin Consulting Enterprise, LLC 
• Dr. Vera Kuklina, Department of Geography, George Washington University 
• Dr. Brice Loose, University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography 
• Dr. Michelle Mack, Center for Ecosystem Science and Society and the Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University 
• Dr. Adam Marsh, School of Marine Science and Center for Bioinfomatics and Computational Biology, University of Delaware 
• Dr. Patricia Quinn, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
• Dr. Sharon Stammerjohn, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado 
• Dr. Eric Steig, Earth and Space Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington 

AC-OPP Members Not Present: 

• Dr. Douglas H. Bartlett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego 
• Dr. Ryan E. Emanuel, Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University 

AC-OPP Subcommittee, Office of Polar Programs and other NSF staff (presenters and speakers): 

• Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan, NSF Director 
• Dr. Roberta Marinelli, OPP Director 
• Dr. Greg Anderson, Program Director, Arctic System Sciences, OPP 
• Ms. Renée Crain, Research Support & Logistics Manager, OPP 
• Dr. Linda Hayden, Director, Center of Excellence in Remote Sensing Education and Research (CERSER); Co-Chair, Polar Sub-Committee on Diversity and Inclusion 
• Dr. Karla Heidelberg, Antarctic Sciences Program Officer 
• Dr. Gretchen Hofmann, University of California, Santa Barbara Marine Science Institute; CoChair, Polar Sub-Committee on Diversity and Inclusion 
• Dr. Alexandra Isern, Acting Assistant Director, Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) 
• Dr. Douglas E. Kowalewski, Section Head, Antarctic Sciences, OPP 
• Ms. Melissa Lane, Staff Associate for Information Management, GEO 
• Mr. Timothy McGovern Program Manager Ocean Projects 
• Dr. Jennifer Mercer, Arctic Research Support and Logistics Manager, OPP 
• Dr. Karen Marrongelle, NSF Chief Operating Officer (COO) 
• Dr. Timothy Patten, Deputy Assistant Director, GEO 
• Dr. Allen Pope, Program Director, Polar Cyberinfrastructure 
• Mr. Mike Prince, Antarctic Research Vessel (ARV) Project Manager 
• Dr. Frank R. Rack, Arctic Research Support and Logistics Manager 
• Ms. Elizabeth (Lisa) Rom, Polar Education Liaison, Division of Ocean Sciences 
• Ms. Stephanie Short, Section Head, AIL, OPP 
• Dr. Nancy Sung, Science Policy Advisor, OPP 
• Ms. Beverly Walker, Science Analyst, OPP 

Notes

Thursday, March 24 

Welcome and Introductions; Conflict of Interest (COI) Review 

Dr. Nettles; Dr. Marinelli; Dr. Anderson 

Dr. Marinelli and Dr. Nettles provided brief introductory remarks. Dr. Anderson briefed the committee on conflicts of interest and the role of Federal advisory committees under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

Dr. Marinelli discussed staff updates: 

• New Hires: 
  • Jennifer Mercer, Arctic Sciences Section, Section Head 
  • Allyson Kristan, Office of Polar Programs, Sea Grant Fellow 
  • Kimberly Ohnemus, Office of Polar Programs, Science Assistant 
  • Carla Haroz, Antarctic Infrastructure & Logistics Section, Operations Manager 
  • Kayla Hubbard, Arctic Sciences Section, Science Assistant 
• Details
  • Sara Eckert, Office of Polar Programs, Communications Specialist, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) 
• Retired
  • Simon Stephenson, Antarctic Sciences Section, Section Head 
• Departures
  • Maj. Rachel Leimbach, Antarctic Infrastructure & Logistics Section, Air National Guard (ANG) Liaison 

Dr. Marinelli also briefed the committee on NSF’s new Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate: 

• Goal - accelerate the development of new technologies and products that: 
  • Improve Americans’ way of life 
  • Grow the economy and create new jobs 
  • Strengthen and sustain US competitiveness 
• Includes portfolio of innovation and translation programs 
  • NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps™) 
  • Partnerships for Innovation 
  • America’s Seed Fund 
  • Convergence Accelerator 
• Updates: https://new.nsf.gov/tip/latest 

Next, she discussed how OPP can take advantage of TIP: 

• Opportunities to partner in advancing polar technology, infrastructure and cyberinfrastructure (CI), science 
  • Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) and Ideas Lab on 
    • Polar Cyberinfrastructure 
    • Engineering Technologies to Advance Underwater Sciences 
• Upcoming 
  • Polar technology workshop 
  • Possible polar technology center 
• Emphasis is on fusion and innovation 
  • More science 
  • Fewer boots on the ground 
  • Engage the missing millions

Dr. Marinelli concluded with a discussion of available budget information at the agency and OPP levels for FY20, FY21 and the FY22 request.

Upcoming Field Seasons and COVID-19 

Dr. Mercer; Ms. Short; Dr. Kowalewski; Dr. Hindle 

Dr. Kowalewski provided a snapshot of the latest deployment data, and outcomes on the LongTerm Ecological Research (LTER) project and the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC). He said there were over 50 science and technical activities scheduled for the 2021-2022 Antarctic field season; 42 were specific science events. Priority was given to field work or where field work involved international collaborations with an expected loss of continuous time series data, or a high risk of instrumentation loss. The number of deployed science events and grantees was reduced for the 2020-2021 field season but rose significantly this past year. 

Dr. Kowalewski added that this season the McMurdo LTER team went into the field. It collected and maintained the longest time series record of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem processes in Antarctica. The McMurdo LTER team was reduced, but successful in all high-priority field work related to stream, lake, and soil sampling to ensure the continuous long-term record is preserved. The Palmer LTER team was also successful and had grantees deployed to complete marine and terrestrial objectives. It expanded the cruise sampling grid to include the tip of the peninsula.

He noted that in November, the 2021 Weddell Seal Science team identified the oldest recorded Weddell mom, age 32. This long-time series data set remains unbroken despite the pandemic as a result of the United States Antarctic Program’s (USAP) close coordination with local and national governments through the New Zealand gateway. 

Dr. Kowalewski provided an update on the Ross Island Earth Station. The new 43-foot diameter antenna dish has been enclosed and replaces an outdated station, which will increase reliability and reduce maintenance and operation costs. 

Dr. Mercer spoke next about Arctic Sciences, which is about to begin the field season. Goals for the season are: 

• Catching up on science projects from 2020 and 2021 
• Resuming facilities upgrade projects at Toolik Field Station 
• Resuming Summit Recapitalization activities 

Turning to Arctic field activity and COVID-19, she said some projects were kept running in 2020 and 2021 through remote sampling and using scientists in the area to collect data or keep projects going. There were a large number of canceled and deferred projects. 

Dr. Mercer highlighted the following projects that will be going into the field, hopefully for full field seasons, this year: 

• Catastrophic Thermokarst Lake Drainage 
  • Alaska (Jones — cancelled in 2020, curtailed in 2021) 
    • Continuing work started in 2021 
    • A combination of remote sensing, field observations, and a lake-drainage experiment are targeted at understanding the causes and consequences of drained Thermokarst Lake basin formation and their broader feedbacks with other arctic system components. 
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site, Expedition Science for Students 
  • Greenland (Allen - cancelled in 2021) 
    • New REU site that will involve a total of eight students each year in an international geologic field experience in Greenland. 
    • Spend five weeks at a field site on the west coast of Greenland while mapping geologic structures in the newly established Aasivissuit - Nipisat The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site. 
    • This project is supported by the Division of Earth Sciences and the Office of Polar Programs in the Geoscience Directorate. 

Dr. Mercer highlighted the 2022 Arctic cruises (University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), US Coast Guard, chartered US vessels and the Canadian Coast Guard): 

• Research vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq: High-resolution records of storminess S. Bering Sea — Donnelly (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)) 
• R/V Sikuliaq: Western Arctic Boundary Current Monitoring — Pickart (WHOI) 
• United States Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy: US Synoptic Arctic Survey — Ashjian (WHOI) 
• R/V Norseman II: Bering Strait Arctic Observing Network (AON) — Woodgate (University of Washington (UW)) 
• R/V Norseman II: Toxic Algal Blooms —Anderson, Pickart (WHOI) 
• R/V Norseman II: High-resolution Multi-tracer Biogeochemical Study — Goni, Juranek (Oregon State University (OSU)) 
• R/V Ukpik: Arctic Shelf Sediment Pathways — Eidam (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH)) 
• R/V Neil Armstrong: Davis Strait Observing System cruise —Craig Lee (UW) 
• Canadian Coast Guard Ship (CCGS) Louis S. St-Laurent (DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada): Joint Ocean Ice Study/Beaufort Gyre Observing System (JOIS/BGOS). NSF- DFO joint cruise — Mary-Louise Timmermans (Yale University) 
• CCGS Sir Wilfred Laurier (DFO): NSF-DFO joint cruise related to the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) —Jackie Grebmeier (University of Maryland Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (UMD-CBL)) 

Dr. Mercer concluded with COVID-19 considerations for the upcoming Arctic field season. 

• Travel procedures are posted to the Battelle Arctic Gateway 
• All research teams should have a written protective plan describing mitigation measures and response to COVID signed by an authorized institutional representative; this plan documents informed consent and shared responsibility of the responsible institution and team members 
• Quarantine and testing are required in the following situations: 
  1. Travel to Toolik Field Station in Alaska 
  2. Use of the Air National Guard (ANG) flights to Greenland 
  3. Any travel to Summit Station 
• Travelers are required to follow national, state, local, and tribal travel restrictions 
• Travelers to Toolik, AK and Greenland are required to be fully vaccinated and boosted per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance 
• Research teams are responsible for responding to a COVID outbreak in the field 

Continuing with COVID-19 protocols for the coming Antarctic season, she listed: 

• Continued focus on managing risk 
• Vaccination requirements expected to continue 
• Physical Qualification changes, if any, will be made in June 
• Quarantine protocols will be established as the season starts 

Ms. Short continued the presentation and discussed Antarctic Infrastructure Modernization for Science (AIMS): 

• Replacing lost lodging capacity is vital 
• Re-baseline efforts are underway 
• Construction is expected to resume next season 

She also discussed the Antarctic approach to COVID-19. Unlike the Arctic, the summer research season doesn’t begin for another several months. She noted that COVID-19 related circumstances can and do change. There will continue to be a focus on managing risk. COVID19 vaccination requirements are expected to continue. In the June time frame, changes to physical qualification requirements will be considered. Quarantine protocols at gateways will be established closer to the start of the season. 

Ms. Short provided three questions for the AC to discuss: 

• How do we foster robust polar research in times of limited field deployments? 
• How can we build resilience in the polar community to mitigate impacts in the future? 
• How can OPP and the AC work together to share this kind of information with our community? 

Discussion

Dr. Nettles, on behalf of the community, thanked the NSF staff for providing a thoughtful approach to management in a constantly changing environment throughout the pandemic. 

Dr. Hindle said she’d be interested in knowing the best projections for when lodging might be coming back into service in McMurdo and how to think about catching up projects. Ms. Short mentioned work being done with the Antarctic support contractor to re-baseline that work. OPP is comfortable about the ability to resume construction next season, given that the gateway in New Zealand is no longer being as restricted on throughput. When the schedule is determined that information will be shared broadly. Her office is working towards a surge in logistics support in the coming season, which would permit a lot of catch up in the next season. There will be much more information in the coming weeks and months. 

Dr. Mercer said there will be additional information on the OPP website for the Arctic in the next weeks. It is easier for the Arctic to catch up on science because it’s dispersed across the Arctic and there are a lot of vessels going and a lot of projects are working in small communities, coastal areas and across different countries. But there are going to be challenges similar to the Antarctic sites with capacity bed space. 

Dr. Marinelli addressed fostering robust polar research in times of limited field deployments. NSF has done much to help existing grantees make it through their funded research with various forms of supplemental support. Also, a DCL is being prepared that will encourage supplemental requests for people who were undergraduates at the time of COVID-19 who have since graduated to apply to be the equivalent of a research assistant in a laboratory, as if they were an undergraduate again to try and make up for lost time and give people experiences that they didn’t have the opportunity to take advantage of. 

Should COVID come back and prove more challenging than it is now, NSF has a better toolkit for understanding how to work with it and get things done. There have been discussions about how to build resilience into the polar community to mitigate impacts, asking: How do we go about doing polar science differently? Can we do more polar science remotely? The director is particularly interested in whether NSF can we develop technologies that allow data to be gathered efficiently and effectively without as many boots on the ground. This is being pursued through opportunities that will come up in future AC sessions to receive member input. There’s no substitute for being there, but there are ways to enrich observations that don’t always require one’s presence. This is the envelope to push in polar to broaden participation and in partnerships with the new directorate, so OPP will be tilting in that direction to fulfill its mission more effectively and keep people engaged and bring new people into the field. 

Acknowledging that the community needs to plan and that it’s been frustrating to plan in an environment where you don’t know what assets are available, there are plans within the next few weeks to release the DCL for the Antarctic that outlines what’s available in the future. There is still a crowded situation in the southern part of OPP’s purview. OPP wants to engage in much longer field planning efforts, so there is a decision to do a big push in a certain area, it is not stopped because everything’s full. AC members are needed to help OPP engage in that process for how to carve out these long-term big questions and start to make progress. 

Dr. Steig asked for more information about what Dr. Marinelli had in mind regarding longer time for field planning. Dr. Marinelli referred the questions to Dr. Kowalewski who said that to deal with the backlog, OPP is not looking at just how to think about the next field season but looking at the existing projects and thinking about those to completion and what parts are no longer relevant to best support projects that already exist. Looking longer term at allocated resources, he spoke about avoiding a situation where a bucket empties and there’s a project that wants to fill that, but it doesn’t allow for a larger scale initiative that uses multiple resources. OPP is interested in identifying the larger scale projects and resources that will be needed, how that is made available and assuring these resources can be available for the next big idea. Some of that is taking place now in terms of developing a new planning strategy for how OPP accepts field proposals and the process they go through as OPP works with PIs to get a better idea of the field demands and how that might fit existing allocated resources. 

Dr. Crowell asked for an example of the cooperation of local communities and indigenous observers in the Arctic and how that enabled projects to be sustained when the field science was curtailed. Dr. Mercer cited work with Greenland’s research institutes to deploy local researchers into the field to service instruments or download information. Dr. Rack provided an example from Alaska using the Ukpeaġvik Iñupiat Corporation (UIC) science staff to assist projects and service instruments. At Toolik Field Station there was an extensive remote measurement call to the community. Many people responded and that became a productive way to get research done when it was not possible to deploy in person. Dr. Mercer cited another collaborative project in Greenland with research institutes mapping coastal submarine changes with sea level rise that was able to conduct community meetings in the local language without American researchers present and considerable gains were made on the research. Ms. Renee Crain referenced a successful project in Northwest Greenland, where work is being done with several communities. 

Dr. Stammerjohn raised the issue of international collaborations and sharing and leveraging resources in the context of the long-term planning involved in the Big Ideas. She asked about the resources or recommendations NSF has and how to approach that as a community and how to share that information. Dr. Marinelli responded that some agency-to-agency international partnerships are well developed and some less so. At the logistics level, NSF has historically done a quid pro quo. At the proposal level, scientists apply to their own agencies and everybody with funding joins together. Some of the most successful international partnerships are driven at the principal investigator (PI) level, where there’s a groundswell of interest in projects, which helps OPP push the relationships it has or needs to develop. There are memoranda of understanding and agreements with international partners that lay out a framework for formalizing that parallel play, where PIs work together to seek funding on a common idea and agencies agree to review internally and review each other’s work. Dr. Marinelli said this would be a good topic for future AC discussions. 

Dr. Kowalewski agreed and said a lot is driven by the PI community. From some of the community development, it allows the formation of better relationships. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) - NSF relationship has worked well for the Thwaites initiative and understanding where that can go in the future, along with interagency agreements, including with The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Antarctica. Regarding international partners, there are challenges and one of the priorities is to advance science during the backlog and have international partners. Sometimes international partners might have different constraints from NSF. And there could be delays supporting collaborative initiatives. Supplemental funding for some projects might be different with international partners. What OPP can support for supplements might not be the same that some international partners can support, which causes an imbalance. But those bigger initiatives are what OPP is looking to move towards. This has been noted in the Mid-Term Assessment of Progress on the 2015 Strategic Vision for Antarctic and Southern Ocean Research. 

Dr. Nettles asked about the COVID impact that is not directly field related. She said there is awareness of the impact on young researchers and the cumulative impact on mid-career and senior researchers. She reported that some of her colleagues who are mid-career or senior are talking about retiring early because of burnout. They haven’t had the time during the last two years to write the papers, formulate new ideas or write the proposals to keep them and their research groups going. The reason NSF invests heavily in early career researchers is for a payoff over the long term. If these people are out of the pipeline, that’s a loss for the robustness of polar research. A lot of people could benefit from a mini-sabbatical or focused writing time or some kind of relief. NSF has been very flexible with supplements. She asked for thoughts from the committee and NSF on ways to support all researchers wherever they are in their career cycle that is not necessarily field related. 

Dr. Marinelli noted that universities have tried to provide some breathing room for faculty at a time when their resources are constrained. Supplements have been an important venue. But that doesn’t work if you don’t have a polar grant and you are early career. NSF has discussed the possibility of helping ease people into polar work by suggesting they think about projects that don’t necessarily require a deployment but get them into a cryospheric environment where they can start to do work to repair a broken pipeline. The foundation is also looking for opportunities to broaden ways people can get engaged in polar work. The DCL, which she is hoping will come out soon, will speak to that. 

Dr. Mercer said there have been considerable steps toward investing in specific programs. There have been a lot more doctoral dissertation grants, postdoc grants and programs and calls for proposals for those things, as well as solicitations. But the situation will not return to normal. Normal is going to adjust over the next few years and no one knows what that will look like. 

Dr. Kowalewski said OPP is involved with the mid-career advancement solicitation. It is for an associate professor to have a sabbatical or build up new skill sets. So, there are mechanisms and solicitations that are underutilized within geoscience or OPP. Dr. Steig suggested publicizing the mid-career advancement solicitation but said it doesn’t address more senior researchers. 

Dr. Nettles said one of the biggest stress groups of senior people consists of those who have been running high school and undergraduate engagement programs. Constant rejiggering of how to do their work has been stressful. She asked the AC to think broadly about new approaches to help the situation. NSF is using many different mechanisms in a good way. 

Dr. Marinelli said the NSF director has an emphasis on fellowships, primarily graduate and postdoc. There will be a fresh look at NSF funding for the next generation of scientists and rebuilding the pipeline. So, it might be easier to get sustained graduate student support out of NSF now than it has been in the past. 

Polar Sub-Committee on Diversity and Inclusion Update

Dr. Hayden; Dr. Hofmann; Dr. Crowell 

Dr. Hayden summarized the topics for the presentation and introduced Dr. Crowell, who began with the first two components of the sub-committee’s charge: 

Part 1: Current state of diversity of the NSF-sponsored polar research community 

• Nationally, women and members of minority communities are underrepresented in sciences and technology, based on Ph.Ds. awarded (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) 2021) 
• By self-reported race, gender, and ethnicity these groups are additionally underrepresented as Pls on proposals submitted to OPP, coming in at less than their proportion of US earned doctorates (review of OPP proposals since 2011). 
• Since 1987, OPP has given a total of 1,588 awards to Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) of higher education, or 21% of all awards (7419). 
• Most underrepresented of the MSI community are historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). A review of Polar Programs funding of HBCUs from 1998-2017 revealed that only six awards were made to three HBCUs for a total of $2,353,792. No current awards to HBCUs were identified. 
• Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI) have relatively strong representation through grants to Arizona State University, University of Arizona, University of California (Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz) and 10-12 other institutions in the Southeast, Southwest and California 
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNH) are very high, primarily because the University Alaska Fairbanks qualifies in this category 
• The Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI) category is the highest, in large part due to the high number of Awards to the University of Washington (Seattle). 

Part 2: Efforts by NSF and others to enhance diversity and inclusion 

• 2.1 Broadening Participation at OPP 
• 2.2 Highlighting NASA’s DEI Efforts 
• 2.3 Other Agency Models for further study 

Dr. Hofmann discussed the sub-committee’s third charge. 

Part 3: Recommendations 

• Identify and recommend the most promising strategies for OPP to pursue to significantly enhance diversity and inclusion in the polar sciences in both near and long-term 
• Long-Term Recommendations 
  • 3.1.1 Employ the Collective Impact Model Within OPP 
  • 3.1.2 Recruit and establish a Program Officer that is responsible for fostering DEI efforts within OPP 
  • 3.1.3. Inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and Arctic Indigenous communities 
  • 3.1.4. Improvements in the tracking of Broadening Participation efforts in OPP projects 

Discussion

Dr. Hayden initiated the discussion with two questions: 

• Does the AC collectively have input/feedback on the recommendations as they are presented, acknowledging that these are not yet complete? 
• Do you all see any areas missing? 

Dr. Marinelli said she is concerned about having one-off opportunities instead of sustained engagement that creates connections within a community and a sense of belonging. 

Dr. Hofmann responded that it is an important question and one of the leading edges of inclusion to make communities feel safe and included and that their contributions are welcomed. A subcommittee member not able to attend the AC meeting is expert in the field of intersectionality. Inclusion and creating community are wrapped up in the long-term recommendations of using the collective impact model. An OPP Program Officer can help run these efforts, but also important are workshops and reaching out to communities and asking: What can we do to create more on ramps into polar science and create a sense of community for polar postdocs? 

Dr. Steig said there are data on sense of belonging increasing when there’s more people who look like you. It is well established in the literature for women and it has to apply to everybody. A lot of the actions being proposed to increase involvement and retention will have that impact on belonging without having to do anything else. Also, there are various groups that have taken on the belonging question in workshops they lead, and the impact is visible. People talk about feeling they belong, and they didn’t the last time there was a meeting there, so there’s real progress in those areas. 

Mr. Iselin said the Department of Defense had mandates for small and disadvantaged business awards from a contracting perspective. That triggered a stand-up office and for every program office that awarded above a certain threshold of contracts, somebody was the liaison with the small and disadvantaged business community and became a touch point who helped train and teach emerging businesses how to do business with the Department of Defense and helped advocate within the Department of Defense. If there were a dedicated person who could look internal to OPP and understand the ongoing science within that community and look externally to the diverse communities, anyone could reach out to them and share and become known within the community as a touch point to help bring more participation into the into the office. 

Dr. Heimbach said that as an individual or small group, it’s hard to make the first hurdle. Building on a potentially successful program, knowing what those success stories and programs are, and learning from those would be powerful. The Texas Advanced Computing Center has advanced computing for social change that involves high school and undergrad level camps. Those programs already have connections to some of these communities. They have educators with little experience how to teach at the high school level but can teach together with people who have that experience who are more knowledgeable in working with high school students. Having a handbook or guideline for how to start with this within polar programs would be powerful to help faculty bridge that first step into making those connections. 

Dr. Crowell said OPP has a lot to learn from other NSF directorates that have done programs. NSF has been committed for four decades to broadening participation. Those efforts are happening all over NSF to a degree that’s much higher than within OPP. OPP can take advantage of being multidisciplinary and NSF’s commitment to diversity. A collaboration is already going on that goes back to a central OPP program officer who could continue the work already being done on the subcommittee and realizing it in a programmatic way. 

Dr. Hayden said a learning activity was held with The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and its support for REUs. They built a community of people who have REU sites and supplements and provide resources for mentoring and feedback on the challenges running these programs. They serve as a model. The subcommittee has discussed if there a way OPP can tap some of the resources and energy in that community. 

Dr. Marinelli said there’s been a shift from those with all the advantages to be more inclusive. But it’s still a small number. Small numbers of people will think about polar research. A much larger number don’t understand what it is. Experiential barriers are keeping many people out of geosciences. They don’t have experience camping, have never been on a boat and don’t know how to prepare to walk on a glacier, which are impediments for many. She asked what can be done to encourage universities to create programs for that introductory pathway, such as special things to get kids interested in the environmental sciences at a formative time. 

Dr. Kuklina spoke about indigenous knowledge and the inclusion of indigenous communities. OPP has done great work engaging with indigenous communities and can learn from this experience for diversity and inclusion. Especially when talking about Navigating the New Arctic (NNA), they have a strong emphasis on knowledge co-production. The subcommittee’s recommendations state that more efforts are needed. One of the points is to consult formally with indigenous communities; they have different experiences that may be useful, especially in Arctic Studies. The formation of permanent indigenous peoples advisory committee would be an option for better engagement and knowledge. 

Dr. Hayden said the larger programs have the ability to run larger REU programs. The Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS) had almost a third of its budget directed towards education and outreach programs. Women composed about 42-63% and underrepresented minorities about 66-89%. That was an intentional effort to use funds to expand outreach and make significant impact in the communities where we were located. She also spoke about exhibitions at the Science and Engineering Fair to make a larger impact. The bigger budget efforts OPP invests in should be encouraged to reach those same levels of engagement with women, underrepresented minorities and pre-college students. She encouraged thinking big to get big numbers out of these programs commensurate with the amount of money being invested. She also discussed a subcommittee recommendation for a component focusing on college freshmen and sophomores to get them involved in the community early on to learn the platforms, the language and become comfortable with the environment. She also mentioned expanding programs such as the Juneau Icefield Research Program (JIRP) that create research opportunities along with training to become comfortable in those environments. 

Dr. Mack said a whole summer commitment to an REU program, or an intensive field course can be too much for students from urban centers or without camping or hiking experience. We could use other Arctic facilities like Toolik Field Station to bring in groups of six or 10 students for shorter experiences to focus exposure to working in the Arctic. This could be done in the shoulder seasons, where the facilities are not at occupancy. In the past the cost has been prohibitive for either graduate or undergraduate classes to go to Toolik, so there may be something OPP can do for small grants focused on experiencing the arctic environment in a soft and well-supported and well-fed atmosphere. 

Dr. Marinelli agreed that many kids are not able to take a summer or even four weeks off for an intensive field camp because they’ve got a job or a child. A pathway is supporting the universities to provide that experience, because a lot of them don’t have those assets either; the cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) is huge. If there’s an opportunity for a university to key into funding to do that in a fully supportive way and not long term, it could bring people in. 

Dr. Jones said talking about a sense of belonging involves retention. He wants to strongly consider training for faculty, leaders and field camp organizers, in addition to preparing students. It is possible to prepare students and there’s the possibility of moving into environments in the lab, field or on the vessel that aren’t welcoming. Part of training should be recognizing the majority of individuals coming into the geosciences are not going into academia. At NSF there is a mismatch in the community as to what skills leaders, professors and faculty are training students with that are not going to be applicable to what they need if they move into the geoscience workforce. 

Ms. Rom said JIRP recently received funding from Pathways into the Geosciences - Earth, Ocean, Polar and Atmospheric Sciences (GEOPAths) with co-funding from OPP to bring Upward Bound students to workshops in Alaska to learn about glaciology and get field experience in the Juneau area on the ice sheet. She encourages virtual participation because it’s less threatening than thinking about diving into a field situation but it’s hard to encourage people to come up with a virtual program. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to encourage more virtual experience that gets students started and gets some thinking about this. 

Dr. Mercer said an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignee with experience engaging with tribal communities is being recruited in the Arctic section. 

Ms. Renee Crain spoke about engagement with tribes. About a year ago, the NSF director had a town hall with tribal leaders to initiate a conversation in response to the Biden administration’s mandate that agencies improve their consultation processes. There is a working group that has been together in the lead up to that town hall and OPP has been continuing to work on ways in which NSF can improve formal engagement and consultation with tribal nations. This week, there was a listening session and a number of others are planned. The focus is on improving consultation and engagement and improving collaborations on research and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. It is an opportunity to hear directly from tribes about what they’re looking for and includes tribal nations across the country. The working group will provide input to NSF leadership about systematically improving NSF engagement with tribal nations. The Arctic Sciences section has wonderful program officers with adaptive experience in these areas and has been improving the ability to engage and do consultation with tribes and work with researchers working with tribes. Environmental compliance and Office of General Counsel areas have also been staffed up. Collaborators within education, human resources and social, behavioral and economic sciences have funded projects with similarities to projects in the Arctic. There will be more from NSF in the in the coming 12 months that can be highlighted in AC meetings and in the subcommittee. 

Dr. Crowell asked for feedback on the feasibility of some of the things the subcommittee is proposing. It includes commitments that are long range and short term, all of which involve institutional resources. The subcommittee wants to make recommendations that are doable. 

Dr. Nettles thanked everyone on the subcommittee and said there will be further discussion. She said the discussion is about sustainability in a multiplicity of ways. She described her image of a skeleton with a backbone and ribs reaching out into the different parts of OPP programs and arms reaching out to other parts of NSF. Articulating how that all fits together is going to be a crucial part of the report. 

Dr. Marinelli also thanked the subcommittee. To chart a path forward requires a lot of back and forth and hammering out the challenges, because they’re not the same as in other disciplines. The mandate has more imperative to it than others because OPP has farther to go. There are things that can be done in the short term with low hanging fruit and things that can be invested in. The question is: What does the portfolio look like and how do we go about building it in a way that’s thoughtful and sustainable from a programmatic perspective that also builds that critical mass? The one-off strategy is worrying. 

ARV Updates and ARV Sub-Committee Charge 

Mr. McGovern; Mr. Prince; Dr. Heidelberg; Dr. Quinn 

Mr. McGovern said he and his co-presenters will provide a brief update on the status of the ARV and the key science drivers for the project, including overall project timeline, stage gates and the current preliminary design phase and efforts for the next 12 months. He will cover the two efforts to solicit interest from industry and academia to act as vessel integrator and vessel operator. They will also discuss efforts to ensure the ARV has strong engagement with the 14 scientific community and the ability to provide input into vessel development. He began with the project’s goal: 

• Purpose 
  • Deliver an advanced icebreaking research vessel to support the next generation of Antarctic and Southern Ocean science. 
• Technical Scope 
  • All necessary elements to take the new vessel from design to delivery. 

Mr. McGovern presented the key performance parameters of the new ARV, which greatly exceed those of the Nathaniel B. Palmer (NBP), which were driven by the science mission requirements developed by an AC subcommittee with broad community input. 

Dr. Heidelberg continued the presentation with a discussion of a US strategic vision for Southern Ocean research. A next generation icebreaker research vessel is essential for maintaining a global leadership role in the Southern Ocean. She highlighted examples of the scientific drivers that helped frame the design request and showed a slide with images of Antarctica seasonal sea ice growth and decline and indicated glaciers of concern. Having predictable access to regions of high glacial instability will be key to understanding factors that control how fast and how much sea level could rise. The Palmer has limited access to the target high-priority region in front of the Thwaites glacier due to high ice and this has prevented researchers from obtaining optimal positioning and meeting science goals. 

She noted that the Southern Ocean, which plays an outsized role in global carbon cycles and climate cycles, is the meeting point of several ocean currents and an important connector between the atmosphere and deep ocean for the transfer of heat and carbon. Year-round, direct measurements are needed to address uncertainties. Greater coverage is needed to collect more ocean carbon data from regions and seasons that have been historically under sampled, such as the Southern Ocean in the winter, and using those findings to improve ocean models. Hence, year-round capability has been identified as a key performance parameter. 

Dr. Heidelberg noted that the Southern Ocean is rich in marine life, including commercially important fish species, and harbors a unique biodiversity that functions as a reservoir for future discoveries. She presented a graphic summarizing the complex relationship between physical, chemical and biological factors that govern ecosystem structure and function. She also showed an image representative of the need for ecosystem-level science. She pointed to a critical need for enhanced state-of-the-art instrumentation and science capabilities with both enhanced birthing and extended cruise times to support complex interdisciplinary teams studying ecosystem structure around the continent. There’s a pressing need for the scientific community to be unified in speaking to the need for a new vessel to maintain strong leadership in the region. 

Mr. Prince picked up the presentation to discuss the stage gates or off ramps that all NSF major facility projects are required to pass through before Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) funding is awarded. He presented a graphic showing the stage gates for the ARV project, starting with a successful Conceptual Design Review (CDR) and NSF director approval to enter the preliminary design phase. The project is about two months into the preliminary design phase. Preliminary design review is scheduled for February 2023, which is the next major stage gate coupled with the director’s approval to enter the final design phase. If the many gates to follow are passed, the ship would be delivered to the NSF in early 2030. There’s a lot of work to do before we have the ship, Mr. Prince said. 

He reviewed the opportunities for NSF to review the design process and the science advisory subcommittee’s opportunity to review design documents or reports associated with each of the interim design reviews, providing the AC with recommendations or concerns. 

Mr. McGovern continued with a discussion of two market research surveys: 

• Vessel Integrator (VI): Single vendor to oversee finalization of the ARV design, shipyard selection and construction, operational testing, and transition to operations. 
  • Interested in engaging with a wide variety of organizational types as potential providers, including, but not limited to, for-profit corporations, academic institutions, or other non-profits. 
• Vessel Operator (VO): Single vendor capable of performing ARV operational services, including: 
  • Maintaining custody of vessel and be responsible for security, regulatory compliance, insurance, port costs, etc. 
  • Coordinate and facilitate all maintenance and repairs 
  • All crewing and operational support (fuel, food, supplies, minor equipment) 
  • Science cruise planning and vessel scheduling 
  • At-sea science technical support services (laboratories, on-deck and over-the-side deployments, etc.) 
  • Maintenance and operation of scientific instrumentation and equipment 

For the first Request for Information (RFI), NSF received seven responses. No academic institutions responded, but competitive acquisition for the integrator effort is possible. The second RFI is still on the street. 

He turned next to the communications plan to reach out to the scientific community and the public. He mentioned using the Web, science community engagement efforts, UniversityNational Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), having the VI participate in scientific meetings, marine technical journals and OPP town halls. It is not just the outflow of information from NSF but receiving input from the community. 

Partnering for the project includes government agencies such as NASA and NOAA, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Partnering also includes Council of managers of national Antarctic programs (Council of managers of national Antarctic programs), the British Antarctic Survey and the Australian Antarctic Program and The Australian Antarctic Program. 

There will also be two formal mechanisms for the science community to provide input into the design and development: 

• Science & Technical Advisors (STAs) 
  • 8-10 individuals 
  • Broad range of scientific & technical backgrounds, including: 
    • USCG icebreaker development & operations 
    • Naval Sea Systems Command shipbuilding 
    • Academic institution researchers 
    • Scientific technical managers 
    • Research vessel operators 
• Science Advisory Subcommittee (SASC) 
  • Dr. Bruce Appelgate, UCSD/Scripps 
  • Ms. Alice Doyle, UNOLS 
  • Dr. Amy Leventer, Colgate University (chair) 
  • Dr. Carlos Moffatt, Univ of Delaware 
  • Dr. Patricia Quinn, NOAA/PMEL; AC representative 
  • Dr. Clare Reimers, OSU 
  • Dr. Deborah Steinberg, VIMS 

In summary, Mr. McGovern said the ARV has been strongly advocated for by the scientific community since the early 2000s. It is imperative to continue to support the science in the Southern Ocean and around Antarctica and increase the ability to facilitate critically important research further into and around the Antarctic continent during all seasons by providing a vessel with enhanced capabilities. But the project has not yet been fully approved for funding. Active science and community engagement and support are needed. AC-OPP will play a critical role in whether the project moves forward. The plan developed thus far has set up a solid path towards effectively delivering the next generation ARV. The outstanding question is how to best keep the science community informed and engaged and supportive of the project and he asked the AC for thoughts on how to improve approaches for engagement. 

Discussion

In response to a question about the timeline for getting community input Mr. McGovern said the timeline for input is now through the end of 2023 for the current phase. If allowed to advance into final design, a similar subcommittee will be formed, or other members of the community will continue to participate and provide feedback as the design continues towards finalization. Regarding specific mechanisms for getting input other than through the subcommittee, he asked for the AC’s help in looking for ideas. 

Dr. Nettles said another venue for input to the effort and outreach to the community is through the AC itself, in addition to the subcommittee. The AC can try to make sure that as new plans are laid out, members are aware of those and have the opportunity to participate and learn and make others aware. Looking farther forward, community involvement becomes important because the people who make the funding decisions need to understand from the science community how important the effort is and that it needs to a priority. The AC can start doing ground level thinking now about how to continue to articulate those needs within the foundation, outside the foundation and within the community and use the AC to be engaged in that and formulate additional approaches to engagement. She encouraged everyone on the AC to talk about this with the rest of the community, alerting them to opportunities for further learning and updating on the progress. 

Dr. Steig suggested a DCL for the ARV, given the scale of investment, to get more input from the community. There’s concern that people are not being kept in the loop, which isn’t true. But it’s easy to miss things with so many emails, but people pay attention to DCLs from OPP leadership. 

Dr. Stammerjohn said the community is starting to become aware of the draft plan for the ARV. They’re wondering what kind of parameters might get adjusted and how far along is the process. In 2018, the ad hoc subcommittee to the advisory committee was tasked with looking at three requirement reports produced by the community over the last 10 years to re-survey the community and refresh the science mission requirements. They produced a 273-page document detailing the science mission requirements for a new ship. As to what more input can still occur, that’s where the AC can help gather feedback from the community. There’s a limitation on how much information can be made public. But the key performance parameters of the ship are fairly well set and those would only change if the budget ran too high, or there was guidance from leadership. But within that, there’s still much room for input regarding layouts of the labs, organization, the capabilities of the ship, the types of multi-beam systems and acoustic systems. There have been some decisions that had to be made along the way that eliminated some of the capabilities that were in the original science mission requirements. It would take a lot of vocal community feedback to alter those, but it’s not impossible. 

Dr. Marinelli said there are sacrifices in any vessel design. The vessel may not have everything people want. If you overdesign it, it could get knocked out of MREFC. OPP has to be careful about demands and accept what can and can’t be done and look for novel ways to do things. This ship can’t do everything the community would want it to do with a price tag NSF is willing to support. Also, the ship is competing with a number of highly competitive and extensive projects desired by other communities, which have strong voices. This community needs to have a strong voice and underscore what science won’t get done without the vessel. It’s linked to urgent questions facing society in the next 10 to 15 years and the community needs to get behind it — what the vessel will do and what will happen if we don’t have it. 

Mr. McGovern responded that most ships have a service life of 30 years. The Palmer is 30 years now, and the intention is to continue operating it until the new ARV is delivered. There’s a clock ticking on how long the ship can last. 

Dr. Quinn said it is sounding like it’s not so much using the scientific input to adjust specifications of the ship, but more the importance of the ship. So, we’re gathering support basically from the community. 

Dr. Marinelli there are design aspects of the ship still at play. These are things that get hammered out as the design goes forward and areas where community input is critical. People with experience working on ships have great ideas on how ships should be configured. And the subcommittee reflects excellent expertise in a number of areas that will be critical for the ship. This is not to say there’s no further discussions about how the ship is designed. But certain things cannot be adjusted. Also, gaining more community support is critical. She agreed that releasing a DCL that updates the community on the status of the fleet going forward is probably a good idea. She said she could not release a DCL that asks the community to support the ARV. That’s not what DCLs are for; they’re mostly informational for the community. 

Dr. Quinn asked if there is a way to see what the design of the ship is currently, science wise, without reading the 272-page report. 

Mr. McGovern said he could share drawings from the conceptual design review last year. And there will be a new set of general arrangement drawings in the next month or two that will give a fresher look at the ship’s status. The subcommittee would be looking at the layout of the labs and the arrangement of state rooms and providing direct feedback on recommendations for changing that. 

Dr. Stammerjohn asked if the review of the CDR is made available publicly. Mr. McGovern said he did not think it was a public document. 

Dr. Nettles said there has been a big effort to collect community input and members of the AC have participated in that, as have people elsewhere. It is important to make sure community input really has been sought and incorporated throughout the process; communicating that as well may be an important aspect of letting people know where we are, because people forget things and not everyone has been as fully engaged in the discussion that has led to compromises so the ship can be built. The charge to the subcommittee is intended to serve part of that function as a conduit between the community and the project. And the subcommittee is supposed to provide advice on the development of the design, but also advise on impact to the project by other policies at NSF and elsewhere. It’s not like there’s nothing else that can change; there could still be a change in the length of the ship of 10 feet or something if someone identifies a flaw in design or a better way to do something. It’s important for people to understand that it’s a genuine opportunity for input, as well as communication back to the community. 

Mr. McGovern said 10 feet was added to the ship from the conceptual design version. So, there can and will be changes along the way, many of them coming from the community. He agreed on the importance of keeping the community aware of the level of community engagement in the process. There’s probably a tendency to say that one was never asked for input. He suggested figuring out a way to illustrate how much community input has gone into and continues to go into this development and what recommendations they’ve provided that have been implemented. 

Dr. Marinelli advocated consulting the 273-page report, because of its detail. She found most useful the analysis of current ship operations, what will be needed in the future and how to get there using a framework for thinking about vessel capability going forward. Though produced 18 months ago, it’s still relevant. 

Geoscience Directorate Updates 

Dr. Isern; Dr. Patten; Dr. Stammerjohn 

Dr. Isern began with GEO’s FY 2022 budget themes, which address climate change, racial equity and recovering from the pandemic. She said the FY 2022 appropriation includes: 

• NSF overall increase of +$351 million to $8.838 billion 
  • Lower than NSF Request of $10.169 billion 
• Climate and Clean Energy receive ~$45 million more in FY 2022 
  • Falls short of FY 2022 Request levels that had large increases for these activities 
• Directorate-level FY 2022 allocations still under development 

Though the overall NSF budget increase was lower than the President’s request, it’s still a good increase, she said, adding that the FY 2023 request would be released next week. 

Next, she discussed GEO’s climate change budget theme: 

• Cross-Directorate climate change discussions 
• Fundamental and use-inspired research: improve understanding, investigate climate impacts, and develop climate solutions 
• Focus on decadal-scale, outcome-oriented research 
• Community-centric convergent approach at regional/local scales 
• Justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion central to investments 
• Developing the next generation climate workforce 
• Leverage current investments in climate research and infrastructure 
  • Coastlines and People and Navigating the New Arctic 

Dr. Isern also discussed the GEO Climate Challenge group which has the goal of delivering meaningful results within a decade. It has assembled six focal areas that build off the recent System Science report from the National Academies of Sciences (NAS): 

• Climate Interventions 
• Climate-Driven Extreme Events 
• Sea-Level Rise 
• Tipping Points 
• Cryosphere Change 
• Water Vulnerability 

Moving to GEO’s racial equity budget theme, there is a focus on three areas. 

• Fostering Career Development 
  • GEOPAths 
  • Non-Academic Research Internships for Graduate Students (INTERN) 
• Supporting Positive Cultural Change 
  • Cultural Transformation in the Geoscience Community, NSF 22-562 
• Offering Leadership Opportunities 
  • Geoscience Opportunities for Leadership in Diversity - Expanding the Network (GOLD-EN) 

Dr. Isern next discussed the theme of GEO’s recovery from the pandemic. GEO is doing all it can in FY 2022 to continue support to the academic community. Those impacts are still occurring, and GEO is doing all it can to mitigate those effects. She encouraged AC members and those they know to spread the word that the best thing is to reach out to program officers to help get the research enterprise back on its feet. 

Turning to major facilities updates on: 

• Regional Class Research Vessels (RCRV) 
  • Three vessels under construction in Louisiana shipyards 
  • COVID-19 restrictions have been highly disruptive 
  • Schedule has been further impacted due to Hurricane Ida 
• Human Occupied Vehicle (HOV) Alvin 
  • Delay in certification due to cracks in the syntactic foam, repairs underway. 
  • Alvin will resume sea trials in May/June 2022, towards the goal of supporting science at 6500 meters depth. 

Dr. Isern said there has been a lot of activity in large-scale NSF and GEO investments. She reviewed: 

• Science and Technology Centers 
• Harnessing the Data Revolution 
• NNA 
• Coastlines And People 
• Mid-Scale Research Infrastructure 
• AI Institutes 
• Networked Blue Economy 

She next described GEO’s mission and vision: 

• The Mission of the Directorate for Geosciences is to fund the development of knowledge and technological innovations to: 
  • understand and adapt to the changes in our earth, ocean, and atmosphere, 
  • accelerate the societal benefits of our investments, and 
  • train a diverse and inclusive geosciences workforce. 
• The Vision of the Directorate for Geosciences is to support groundbreaking discoveries of the products and processes of the earth, ocean, and atmosphere systems from the past to the present and into the future for the benefit of citizens, decision-makers, educators, and scientists. 

She also outlined the foundation’s Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP), which will: 

• Advance breakthrough technologies 
• Address critical societal and economic challenges 
• Accelerate research results to market and society 
• Prepare the nation’s future STEM leaders 

She continued with a discussion of TIP areas where GEO and OPP can interface with TIP. 

• Environmental Impacts on Human Health 
• Climate Interventions 
• Oceans: Energy, Carbon Capture, Mineral Resources 
• Solutions and Community-Driven, Place-Based Science 
• Geo-Impacts, Mitigation of Nanoparticles, Microplastics 
• Critical Minerals, Strategic Elements 
• Accelerating to Net Zero: Geologic Carbon Capture. 

Dr. Stammerjohn continued the presentation by providing AC-GEO updates. She reviewed: 

• NSF’s Learning Agenda 
  • Led by Clemencia Cosentino, NSF’s Chief Evaluation Officer, Evaluation and Assessment Capability (EAC) Section, Office of Integrative Activities 
  • Stems from the “Evidence Act” & NSF’s Strategic Plan o Goal: “bolster NSF efforts to make informed decisions & promote a culture of evidence” 
  • Approach: formulate Guiding Questions to generate useful Evidence for decisionmaking 
• Learning Agenda Breakouts 
  • Example Question: What are the characteristics of NSF’s portfolio on climate change, & to what extent might this portfolio advance NSF’s goals of equity, discovery & impact? 
  • 3 Breakout Groups: climate processes, climate impacts, & climate solutions 
  • 3 1-hr Breakout sessions: within assigned climate topic, what does “equity” mean, & how do equity issues reveal themselves? 
• Other Briefings & Topics 
  • NSF’s “URGE”: Unlearning Racism in Geoscience Vashan Wright: what inspires people to dismantle racism? https://urgeoscience.org/ 
  • NASEM Report: Advancing a Systems Approach for Studying the Earth: A Strategy for the NSF, within & across directorates 
  • TIP: “use-inspired translational research across the Directorate” 
  • Two Committee of Visitor (COV) Reports completed: Div. Earth Sciences, GEO Educ & Diversity Program
• Ongoing Topics 
  • Climate Equity & DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) 
  • How to promote & support DEI requirements in both Intellectual Merit & Broader Impacts (BI)? 
  • How can NSF provide better guidance on Broader Impacts so that it is well supported, well regarded and well-advertised? 
  • Could NSF develop programs within the core funding that require an equity lens on research? 
  • (Perhaps pair the science question with an equity question & require inclusive interdisciplinary teams) 

Dr. Isern concluded by going back to URGE. She asked committee members to look into it. The next AC-GEO meeting will continue this learning agenda activity, which is a pilot idea within NSF. One idea is for community input to the strategies that go to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). One way to do it is through the AC and breakout groups. There will also be a discussion on TIP with ideas for areas to plug into innovation and partnerships. AC-GEO chair is from a community college and there is representation from tribal colleges and other emerging institutions. The barriers to people getting funding in part is the mechanics of not having access to a Sponsored Research Office (SRO) or an office that can help with processing proposals. There will be a panel with some members from emerging institutions to talk about these barriers and help develop ideas on removing or reducing them. 

Discussion

Dr. Nettles said barriers for emerging institutions has also come up in discussions with the ACOPP subcommittee addressing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and it is exciting to see the GEO panel covered it. Many members would love to watch the panel events. 

In response to a question, Dr. Isern said AC-OPP members interested in TIP program ideas can contact her or Dr. Patten. Dr. Barbara Ransom, GEO Program Director, is leading the effort. 

Wrap-up

Dr. Nettles; Dr. Marinelli 

Dr. McGovern addressed a written question about comparisons of the design for the new ship with other recent research vessels. Dr. McGovern said the ARV is being designed as a replacement for the Nathaniel Palmer, a dedicated research platform. In contrast, many of the new icebreaking vessels have a strong logistics requirement. The new UK ship, the Sir David Attenborough, needs to resupply five stations each season and is designed to carry about 32,000 cubic feet of cargo and aviation fuel. It’s more than 400 feet long and has significantly lower icebreaking capability. The Australian ship, the Nuyinahan, is identified as a research and supply vessel. It has similar icebreaking capabilities and endurance as the ARV, but a very large resupply mission and it can carry 96 20-foot containers and is more than 500 feet long. The ARV is in the mid-300 foot-long range and designed to be more nimble. It is a dedicated research icebreaking vessel. It is possible to build a ship as big as an aircraft carrier, but it has to be affordable to operate. The ARV is a good combination of advanced science capabilities. Dr. Nettles said the report she referenced earlier has a section that discusses the other vessels. 

Dr. Nettles returned to the issue of building resiliency with Dr. Hindle asking about two potential bottlenecks on the biology side that go towards reducing field footprints, increasing resilience and increasing the potential for data to be collected and analyzed in the United States, instead of the field. One is continuing to build biobanks; an idea well established in other disciplines and exists in biology also. But it is absent in many subfields of biology that work in polar regions. The other is about what shared scientific support could be possible in other disciplines. She asked if the successes in Greenland, where local resources were deployed to help fix instruments, could be applicable in other places. There might be a way to suggest to research groups working in similar areas, both geographically and scientifically, that there might be some incentives for groups on their own to determine where they could merge shared resources and reduce field footprints. 

Regarding the biobanks, Dr. Heidelberg there was recently a large workshop about the concept of a biobank specifically for Antarctica. A report was received this week from the workshop with recommendations. OPP is looking at the recommendations and determining next steps. It also helps address the mandate for providing access to resources for people doing projects that don’t require fieldwork. It is something OPP is looking at seriously. 

Dr. Mercer referenced the Greenland research community augmenting field teams during the pandemic, adding there is a lot of effort incorporating traditional knowledge and co-production in Arctic communities across the board, not just in Alaska. At Summit station, with the recapitalization, OPP is looking for ways to reduce the human footprint on the station in terms of renewable power, less human interaction and automated types of measurements. 

Dr. Nettles said these fits with discussions about other types of data reuse analysis in ways that are not field based. One of the ways BI is talked about is collecting these data that will be useful for other researchers and to analyze later. Sometimes that data could be more thoroughly explored. It’s interesting to think about how to do that in a biological way. It is a broader issue that the AC can continue to discuss in several topics as cross cutting, including the data management aspect tomorrow during discussion of cyber infrastructure. 

Dr. Marinelli said that regarding sharing people resources, the office has done that historically with folks maintaining instruments and assisting with time series. One benefit is a lot of cross training, professional development and the development of a broader suite of skills. A drawback is you may not be providing someone who doesn’t have that experience with the ability to deploy and gain it. There is a line that one has to be careful of. 

Dr. Nettles said it is an interesting debate and has happened in geophysics. There’s a tension between a more professionally collected data set and providing on-the-ground experience for new scientists. 

Dr. Hindle said she wants as many trainees to get field experience as possible and asked if there is a way in the logistical planning phases, particularly over the next few years, to solicit advice from the community as to where they could economize by collaboration. 

Dr. Heidelberg said that has been done on an ad hoc basis. This year and last year there were team members who, when their project ended, stayed on and joined other groups to increase the manpower without somebody else having to go through quarantine. Contractors were also used to help fix and reset equipment for another year of data taking. That is being done as much as much as possible to clear the backlog as fast as possible to get back to some normality. 

Dr. Hindle said that is a great solution in the near term and asked if it is top down. That is, does NSF identify the overlap and suggest to the communities or identify more potential overlaps by taking the question to the community and having them make additional suggestions that NSF hasn’t considered? She liked that idea and is happy to discuss it and figure out how to best leverage those ideas. 

Dr. Nettles and Dr. Marinelli guided members in preparations for the next day’s meeting and made plans for offline communication about invitees for a DEI follow-up discussion. 

Friday, March 25

Polar Partnership with Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure 

Dr. Pope; Dr. Heimbach