NRC on Global Change

Abstract

The News & Comment article “Global change fights off a chill” by Andrew Lawler (12 June, p. [1682][1]) provides a good summary of the recent National Research Council (NRC) report ([1][2]) by the U.S. Committee on Global Change Research and the Board on Sustainable Development. The NRC report calls for a refocus of U.S. global change research in response to the “impressive array of scientific accomplishments” and on the evolution of federal policies over the last decade of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's (USGCRP's) existence. The NRC report justifiably bemoans the recent deterioration of surface-based data collection programs. The report also dwells on the allocation of funds among the various federal agencies and scientific approaches in the USGCRP. A pie chart in the News article shows three-quarters of the total USGCRP budget going to NASA, and the NRC report states that 61% of the USGCRP budget supports space-based observations, while “only 11% of USGCRP observations [were] devoted to in situ measurements.” The implication is that NASA's part could be used more effectively elsewhere in the USGCRP for surface-based studies. Such comparisons ignore the fact that NASA's Earth observation programs serve other national interests. Over half of what USGCRP calls its budget is being used to build an infrastructure of space-based, global, monitoring systems for scientific, human welfare, and commercial purposes. The NRC report admits that if funding for Earth observations from space were cut, the transfer of funds from NASA space missions to other agencies within the USGCRP would be “unlikely.” We agree that the allocation of limited resources requires careful consideration. Surface measurements provide unique and crucial data, but satellites are the only practical way of getting consistently calibrated, real-time observations over the whole globe. Both are needed to achieve a useful understanding of the Earth System. We also believe the NRC report and the News article may give the wrong impression that all of NASA's research is space-based when, in fact, most of NASA's global change science funding (which is about 14% of the total USGCRP budget) goes to independent research institutions to do in situ studies. Finally, it seems unfortunate that, given NASA's role in the USGCRP, no NASA scientists were on the NRC report committees. 1. [↵][3]Overview Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade (Academic Press, Washington, DC, 1998). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.280.5370.1682 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text