[LTER-All-lter] Fwd: News: NSF shrinks NEON in major blow to high-profile U.S. ecological science project

[Robert Waide]

fyi


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	News: NSF shrinks NEON in major blow to high-profile U.S. 
ecological science project
Date: 	Mon, 3 Aug 2015 11:20:34 -0400
From: 	Robert Gropp <rgropp at aibs.org>
To: 	AIBS Public Policy Committee mailing list 
<publicpolicycommittee-l at aibs.org>




To AIBS Public Policy Committee,

A rather rather major announcement from NSF regarding NEON.  Due to 
construction delays and cost overruns, the project is being re-scoped 
and the aquatic aspects will be eliminated.

http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/08/nsf-shrinks-neon-major-blow-high-profile-u-s-ecological-science-project

Rob


  NSF shrinks NEON in major blow to high-profile U.S. ecological science
  project

Jeff tries to explain how government works to readers of /Science/.

Email Jeffrey 
<mailto:jmervis at aaas.org?subject=NSF%20shrinks%20NEON%20in%20major%20blow%20to%20high-profile%20U.S.%20ecological%20science%20project>
By
Jeffrey Mervis <http://news.sciencemag.org/author/jeffrey-mervis>
3 August 2015 9:00 am
0 Comments 
<http://news.sciencemag.org/environment/2015/08/nsf-shrinks-neon-major-blow-high-profile-u-s-ecological-science-project#disqus_thread>

The National Science Foundation (NSF) today acknowledged that it bit off 
more than it could chew when it agreed in 2010 to build a unique network 
of dozens of ecological stations across the United States. Facing cost 
overruns and construction delays, NSF officials have decided to reduce 
the scope of the troubled National Ecological Observatories Network 
(NEON) <http://www.neoninc.org/> and eliminate a major aquatic research 
component.

NSF recently discovered that the $433 million project, which was 
scheduled to be completed next year, “was delayed and projected to be 
approximately $80 million over budget if it stayed on its current 
trajectory,” says James Olds, head of NSF’s biology directorate. After 
consulting with NEON officials and outside scientists, Olds says NSF 
“identified a descope option that will keep the project scientifically 
transformational and should bring it in on time and on budget.”

The move to shrink NEON follows years of complaints from scientists that 
NSF and project management have been inflexible and that the community 
has been shut out of the decision-making process. And all sides 
acknowledge that NEON was terra incognito. A report in February by a 
top-level advisory body noted that “it is important to remember that the 
ecological research community has no experience with a project of this 
scale.” The report also tried to revive the flagging spirits of 
researchers who may have lost interest in the project because of what it 
called the “long time period of design and construction without any data 
flow.”


NSF’s announcement is a blow to those who plan to use NEON. “It’s 
terrible news,” says ecologist Walter Dodds of Kansas State University 
in Manhattan, who championed STREON, NEON’s now-canceled aquatic 
experimentation component. But NEON Inc., the Boulder-based nonprofit 
that manages the project, vowed in a statement that “the project will 
remain positioned to meet the goal of transforming continental scale 
ecology,” adding that large NSF-funded projects “commonly require 
adjustments of scope and in this regard NEON is not exceptional.”

*Ecology's big data moment*

The changes are the latest twist for a project first proposed 15 years 
ago—not by the ecology community, but by then-NSF Director Rita Colwell. 
NEON was seen as ecology’s entry into the world of big data. In lieu of 
the traditional approach of having scientists monitor their own tiny 
slice of the world, using their own methods and instruments, NEON would 
standardize the process—and collect data on a massive, continental scale.

After several false starts, researchers and NSF coalesced around a final 
plan for NEON. 
<http://news.sciencemag.org/2009/07/another-green-light-neon-and-heftier-price-tag> For 
some 30 years, scientists would collect a continuous stream of 
information from towers and sensors installed at sites within 20 
ecological domains <http://www.neoninc.org/science-design/field-sites>, 
including tropical forests, wetlands, high desert prairies, and even 
urban ecosystems. Data from “core” terrestrial and aquatic sites within 
each domain would be supplemented by information from two “relocatable” 
sites, using equipment that could be moved every decade or so. Three 
planes would fly over the domains periodically during the growing season 
to record changing vegetation patterns. The data would be accessible to 
all, allowing scientists to assemble a continental-scale picture of 
climate change, land-use trends, and the movement of invasive species.

Construction began in 2011 and was supposed to be completed by the end 
of 2016. But the path for project managers was never smooth. Some of the 
problems were of their own making, including high staff turnover and 
conflicts caused by relegating scientists to what they saw as a 
secondary role. The permitting process has turned out to be a nightmare, 
and there were also persistent technical challenges. Establishing sites 
outside the contiguous United States has been especially problematic; 
Hawaii and Alaska pose unique environmental challenges, and NEON 
abandoned an urban site in Puerto Rico earlier this year after two 
guards were killed.

NSF recently concluded that NEON was running a year behind schedule, a 
time frame “that is not acceptable,” Olds says. To get back on track, 
Olds says NEON will keep core sites in all 20 domains, but reduce the 
number of relocatable sites. As a result, the planned initial cohort of 
60 sites could be reduced to 50, says one scientist familiar with the 
project.

*STREON's choppy waters*

The biggest change is dropping STREON. Unlike NEON’s other components, 
which gather information about the environment, STREON was designed to 
intentionally alter stream ecosystems—by adding nutrients, simulating 
extreme weather conditions, and removing top predators—and then document 
how they responded. But obtaining the permits needed to conduct such 
experiments proved difficult. “To do a STREON experiment, you need a 
significant reach of stream, and access to it for 30 to 40 years,” Olds 
explains. “You’re asking for permission to put chemicals into the water 
for a very long time, and any single owner can veto it.”

Olds insists that NSF has not abandoned STREON. “We are very interested 
in seeing the experiment go forward,” he says. “It simply will go 
forward in a context other than the construction of NEON.”

Aquatic scientists are skeptical. It will be difficult to run STREON 
independently, they say, because it relies on NEON sites as controls. 
They also see NSF’s decision as part of a larger pattern of systemic 
neglect of NEON’s aquatic components. This past June, Dodds and 18 other 
researchers wrote to NEON and NSF, noting that construction of aquatic 
sites was lagging far behind terrestrial sites, and urging them to close 
the gap by shifting resources. The number of STREON sites had already 
been cut in half from the original 20, they noted.

NEON officials rejected the idea, stating “we cannot make one component 
of the Observatory a higher priority than others.” They blamed 
“permitting, site science requirements, and procurements” for delays, 
noting that “for various reasons, these obstacles have presented greater 
challenges on the aquatics side than on the terrestrial side.”

Dodds says the decision to cast STREON adrift means that NEON will be 
disproportionately focused on terrestrial sites. He says it also runs 
counter to a 2003 report by the National Academies that helped NEON win 
congressional support. The report noted the importance of supplementing 
NEON’s observational data with experimental results. “That’s what the 
community felt was important,” Dodds says. “And now there won’t be any 
experimental elements.”

*Details to come*

NEON officials still need to work out descoping details, Olds says. But 
today’s move is designed to “strengthen NSF’s oversight” of NEON, Inc., 
he noted, adding that the agency expects the group “to work robustly 
with stakeholders and ensure that the science will best serve the 
evolving needs of the research communities it is designed to serve."

In its statement, Neon Inc. said: "Science has been and will continue to 
be the foundation of NEON ... We remain unwavering in our commitment to 
scientific integrity and fulfilling the mission of NEON using the best 
available science. We are no less excited about NEON's potential to 
contribute to essential ecological research for decades to come."

The descoping, Olds noted, won’t affect NSF’s plans to spend $65 million 
a year over the life of the project to operate facilities and make data 
available to researchers. “We have every intention of maintaining that 
amount,” he says. “It’s in our budget.”

Posted in Environment <http://news.sciencemag.org/category/environment>, 
Funding <http://news.sciencemag.org/category/funding>, Policy 
<http://news.sciencemag.org/category/policy>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/all-lter/attachments/20150803/39930093/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 88334 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.lternet.edu/pipermail/all-lter/attachments/20150803/39930093/attachment.jpe>