Findings and Recommendations - Basic Research Opportunities in Earth Science - page 81

EAR is currently divided into five disciplinary core programs based on
divisions among the constituent fields of Earth science—Geology and
Paleontology (G&P), Geophysics, Hydrologic Sciences, Petrology and
Geochemistry, and Tectonics—and three core programs that are intrinsically
multidisciplinary—Continental Dynamics, Education and Human Resources, and
Instrumentation and Facilities (see Appendix A ). Proposals from individuals or
small groups of investigators are funded primarily through the first five. The
strength of these core programs is thus critical to sustaining advancement in all
aspects of Earth science, in particular new avenues of research and
multidisciplinary investigations of Earth processes and systems. 1 Core funding
of individual investigators also underpins research-based education at NSF (see
“Education” below), as well as the continuing education of recent graduates who
must learn the value of innovation and independence to be successful researchers
in their own right.
Strict disciplinary divisions are recognized to be artificial, and an increasing
number of investigator-initiated “small-science” projects span two or more
disciplines (see Chapter 2 ). For this reason, NSF program managers can and do
work together to evaluate and split-fund proposals. Flat budgets and declining
buying power within the disciplinary core programs, as well as the sometimes
narrow focus of review panels, have made it increasingly difficult to
accommodate new areas of investigation within this structure, however. 2 The
problem is particularly acute in two fields identified as exceptionally promising in
Chapter 2 —geobiology, and Earth and planetary materials—for which major new
support is justified. Outstanding research opportunities related to the
multidisciplinary problems of the Critical Zone also warrant expansions in the
traditional fields of geology and hydrology.
1 In their recent essay on the problems of interdisciplinary research, Norman Metzger
and Richard Zare ( Science, v. 283, p. 642-643, 1999) put forward this point in the
following way: “Strong interdisciplinary programs can only be built in circumstances in
which strong disciplinary programs already exist. It makes no sense to sacrifice successful
disciplinary efforts to appease perceived interdisciplinary needs.”
2 According to the budget figures presented in Appendix A , the total 1999 expenditure
in the EAR disciplinary core programs was $38 million, compared to $39 million in 1992
and $33 million in 1985. In terms of constant buying power, this represents a 23% decline
in the funding of disciplinary core programs between 1985 and 1999. On the other hand,
funding of other EAR program elements, including multidisciplinary research,
instruments, facilities, and science and technology centers, more than tripled over the same
period (see Figure A.1 ).