Linking Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development

Hosted by the

US National Academies

Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability

2101 Constitution Avenue

Washington DC 20001

Members’ Room

May 24-25, 2004

Agenda

Monday May 24

Panel Presentations and Discussion

In each panel, selected program managers will give an informal presentation (10 minutes, no PowerPoint) on the issues listed below (see “Request for Case Summaries” for more details):

• Problem definition: What is the problem to be solved by your program? How – if at all – did the ultimate problem definition differ from initial formulation by scientists and decision makers, respectively? How – if at all – did the program provide for a user-driven dialogue between scientists and decision makers to shape problem definition?

• Program management: Was your program developed in such a “project” mode? Did it have specific, measurable goals and targets? If so, what? To what extent and in what ways was goal and target definition driven by scientists or decision makers, or both? To what extent and in what ways were program leaders held accountable for achieving those goals and targets?

• Program organization: Did your program involve a boundary spanning function or organization? If not, how did you organize the dialogue between producers and users? If so, where and how was the boundary organization or function created? What did it do? To what extent was it accountable to both users and producers for achieving its goals?

• The decision-support system: To what extent is the decision support system developed by your program an end-to-end system? What are its discrete elements (eg., i. a climate forecast; ii. an impact model converting climate forecasts into yield forecasts required by

decision makers)? Which were the hardest elements to put in place? Why? What changes in research, decision-making, or both have occurred as a result of the system?

• Learning orientation: Did your program have an expressly experimental orientation? How did it identify which risks to take? How did it identify success and failure? How did it engage outside evaluators to help it reflect on its own experience? What are the most important lessons you have learned regarding pitfalls to be avoided, or approaches to be followed in the future?

• Continuity and flexibility: How do budgetary requirements and/or human resource pressures influence your program? What, if any, collaborative funding mechanisms have you developed to ensure continuity and relevance to users’ needs? If applicable, how do you maintain public funding, or incorporate private funding, for the provision of a partially private good? What, if any, innovative approaches have you developed for enhancing human capacity in your program area (e.g. building curricula or providing incentives to reward interdisciplinary activities)?

• Other insights: What other insights or conclusions emerge from your experience about the factors responsible for success and failure in activities designed to link knowledge to action?

• Other issues: Are there any other issues that you would like to discuss during the workshop?

• James Buizer, Arizona State University – International Research Institute for Climate Prediction

• Lisa Vaughan, NOAA – Research Applications Initiative

• Joel Scheraga, EPA – Development of Adaptation Strategies in the Great Lakes Region

• Claudia Nierenberg, NOAA – Challenges of NOAA’S RISA

• Lawrence Friedl, NASA – Air Quality Management

• Ron Birk, NASA – Integrated System Solutions

• Todd Mitchell, Houston Advanced Research Center – Accelerated Development of Clean Air Policy in Houston and Dallas

• Bill Wallace, Engineers Without Borders

• Jeff Cochrane, USAID – USAID’s IT program

• John Warner, Green Chemistry Institute

• Steve Lingle and Bob Wellek, EPA and NSF – Technology for a Sustainable Environment

• Herman Karl, USGS – Co-Production of knowledge

• Woody Turner, NASA – MesoAmerican Biological Corridor

• Michael Jawson, USDA – Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems

• Bhavani Pathak, USAID – USAID’s Biotechnology Programs

• Ed Sheffner, NASA – Agricultural Efficiency Applications Project

• Ken Bridbord, NIH – AIDS in the Developing World

• Chris Braden, CDC – Molecular Typing of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis

• Robert Venezia, NASA – Global Transport Models for Disease Vectors

What have we learned from the 3 panel discussions? What are the 3-4 most significant challenges/issues that should be the focus of breakout group discussions on Tuesday? What are major challenges and how do they differ between sectors? Are the strategies that have been employed effectively to meet the challenges the same or different for the different types of user groups?

Tuesday May 25

Panel Discussions

To maximize participants’ input into the workshop, at the end of day one the agenda will be “filled in” with discussion topics that emerged as key issues during the day’s discussions.

Examples of issues that have emerged in previous workshops on similar topics include (see “Request for Case Summaries” for more details): problem definition that is collaborative but user-driven; adoption of a “project” orientation and organization; the role of boundary organizations; and development of a learning orientation.