R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment 11 Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental 11
- Coupled Human and Natural Ecosystems
Download 338.85 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- UA Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base.
- UA Research as a Knowledge Enterprise.
- Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together
- Expertise at the Universit
- Alaska Observing Network
- Oversight and coordination
- Incentivization of industrial RD
- Coupled Human and Natural Ecosystems. Universities traditionally build expertise along disciplinary lines. Most of the issues raised in this report, however, require interdisciplinary analysis and integration. Economic diversification and enhanced value from natural resource extraction, for example, simply can not happen in the state without close attention to human and environmental impcts. SJR44 recognized the importance of such considerations by calling for the simultaneous improvement of the economy, environment, and human health. UA has started to develop capacity to deal effectively with such tough interdisciplinary issues through a new NSF supported Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) program focused on regional resilience and adaptation, complemented by an even newer EPSCoR proposal to extend the IGERT educational/graduate student focus into faculty research. Similar concerns about adaptation and impact are starting to permeate national programs in weather and climate change, and opportunities for competitive grants should continue to grow. In spite of these positive beginnings, the pedagogical and research vocabularies, techniques, and even reward systems differ greatly between natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and the humanities. It will take years of dedicated effort to develop the new paradigms and approaches needed to holistically address the ‘entangled values’ of economy, environment, and human activity. New ways of thinking, teaching, and researching are required; this is truly an intellectual frontier. Expertise in total ecosystem sustainability is badly needed everywhere. UA already has taken some important steps to build capacity in these difficult skills, and with continued effort and support has a truly unique opportunity for world leadership. In addition to strengthening its R&D capabilities and leadership in these six thematic areas, UA, with state support, can undertake some specific R&D-oriented initiatives to stimulate within Alaska both aspects of R&D that we have stressed in this report: enhancing the state economy, and fostering knowledge to improve protect the health of Alaskans and Alaska’s environment, while contributing to the solution of important national and international problems. - UA Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base. By virtue of its already extensive research base, UA possesses some valuable intellectual property. Among its new initiatives is UAF’s Center for Nanoscience Technology, which is explicitly designed to foster the development of microelectronic technology, which can lead to new, high-tech business in the state. Similarly, the Arctic Energy Office’s program is designed to stimulate UA-industry cooperative projects. UA should work with industrial leaders in the state to assess other opportunities, including - an in-depth assessment of the commercial potential of research already underway, - mechanisms for expanding the nascent technology hub in Anchorage and “tech park” in Fairbanks, - closer relationships between engineering and science, and business and economics faculties and institutes, and - support for the change to AS 14.40, the UA governing legislation, needed to enable UA researchers to participate in business development in areas related to their research (footnote 5). - UA Research as a Knowledge Enterprise. One of the major recommendations from this report is the development of an “Alaska Observing Network” to conduct and coordinate the long-term monitoring, process studies, data management, and modeling needed to address many of the R&D themes we have identified. The backbone of the envisioned network would comprise five monitoring “systems,” one each consisting of in-situ sensors and data collection programs focused on oceans (this is evolving as CAOS), terrestrial resources, atmosphere and space, and humans, plus one that would collect and provide satellite data to the other four. All of these would feed their data into a central data management system that would also serve as a portal to data collected by other researchers, and both provide data to and collect it from process studies. This data would in turn feed and support computer models designed to produce analyses, nowcasts, and forecasts, and to answer questions posed by decision makers. We note that the concept of an such an integrated observational network or “enterprise” on a regional scale, designed to address simultaneously a wide range of physical, chemical, biological, and ecological questions both individually and globally, is also a central theme of the US Climate Change Research Program. Fielding and operating such a network will require the coordinated efforts of a very large number of federal and state agencies and other participating and sponsoring organizations. Only UA in the state, however, has the breadth of disciplines needed to envision, define, coordinate and manage the entire complex of systems. UA already manages or participates in most of the existing monitoring systems, sensor networks, and data collection and evaluation processes in the state and its waters; it coordinates or operates the wide band and remote communications links and satellite data receivers needed for the science; it operates the ARSC where the major models would run; and it has started to develop the data management and portal system in the Geographical Information Network of Alaska (GINA). It will require a major, long-term commitment on the part of UA to lead such an effort. However the observing network is a key component of the state’s R&D future, and the University will benefit significantly from it. Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together The state and federal governments own some 87% of the land in Alaska, and share responsibility for regulating activities throughout the state and its waters. While the agendas and interests of federal and state agencies do not always coincide, both need information about the land, water, and its natural and human resources. Thus we believe that R&D, as outlined in this report, is the common ground for collaboration. State and federal agencies are much more likely to come to common conclusions if they base their analyses and decisions on information that has been jointly collected in a cooperative research program. And when there are disagreements in interpretation, at least the differences can be traced back to a point of common origin. We therefore believe that our basic recommendations for R&D to meet state needs, simultaneously offer the best opportunity for ensuring that the state and federal governments “work together to identify and assess areas of high economic potential from resource development and tourism on federal and state lands, water, and airspace of Alaska,” as requested by SJR44. To restate the basic points: -- State promotion and coordination of R&D will ensure that the state is aware of, and can provide guidance to, federal as well as state, university, industrial, and other R&D in Alaska. -- Collaboration and partnership, particularly when it involves shared laboratory facilities and equipment, ensures common understanding and standards. Collocation also naturally encourages cooperation and sharing. -- Expertise at the University of Alaska is equally accessible to federal and state agencies, and UA can serve as a common ground for partnerships and cooperative units and programs. -- The centerpiece of our “R&D as an enterprise” recommendations, development of an Alaska Observing Network, or Alaska Resource Assessment Network, requires close state and federal cooperation for definition, management, funding, and operations. It is an inherently joint venture. The best of our current observing systems (e.g. the Alaska Volcano observatory and the state seismic network) are based on state-federal-UA partnerships; CAOS is being designed from the start as a collaborative venture.
-- Incentivization of industrial R&D. Expanded industrial participation in R&D is not only critical to sustainable economic growth, but to the degree that the objective is to exploit the economic potential of state and federal lands through tourism and resources development, industry should share the costs of the R&D that identifies opportunities and improves feasibility. -- Provision of adequate facilities. The federal government will not fund directly facilities for state agency and university R&D. However much of the capital outlay can be recaptured through indirect cost recovery from federally supported research, and the expanded economic base associated with a robust R&D program. Further, the federal government does either rent or build facilities for its own personnel. To the degree that the state can provide opportunities for collocation and facility sharing, a significant portion of its own capital and O&M costs can be offset. -- Cost match, and start-up costs. Many federal programs require a cost match. To the degree that the state desires to attract such funds, it must provide the needed resources. Similarly, the state should bear the burden for building capacity and maintaining excellence in areas where it wishes to attract additional long-term federal support. Federal programs like EPSCoR can help, but their rules are not always commensurate with state needs. Ultimately, capturing the “high economic potential from resource development and tourism on federal and state lands, water, and airspace of Alaska” is a political process. R&D can not be expected to resolve all of the associated issues. It can, however, provide a solid and shared foundation of knowledge for making decisions and building consensus. Further, cooperation in R&D can largely be conducted out of the political limelight, while building bridges among constituencies. At its best, the R&D process -- and certainly the basic research component -- is unbiased and transparent. R&D should be conducted in such a way that its results are trusted by all factions. Only if the state and federal governments cooperate in building the basis upon which decisions can be based, can they be expected to work together to achieve common economic and political goals. 1 Working Groups Chairs and ARC and NPRB representatives included: Alaska’s Innovation Resources, Craig Dorman, UA Statewide; Physical Infrastructure, Jeff Staser, Denali Commission; Social and Economic Needs of Alaskans, Marlene Johnson, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; Environment, Molly McCammon, EVOS Trustee Council; Alaska Industry, Tom Case, UA Anchorage College of Business and Public Policy; and Technical and Operating Management Capabilities, Jamie Kenworthy, ASTF. Other Coordinating Committee members are Clarence Pautzke, NPRB, and Mead Treadwell, ARC. Rita Colwell and Karl Erb, NSF, provided guidance from the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC). Legislators appointed to participate were Senators Gary Wilken and Lyda Green, and Representatives Lesil McGuire and Lisa Murkowski. 2 We gratefully acknowledge the developers of this web site, Prof. Kara Nance and Dr. Brian Hay of UAF. 3 There are on the order of 300-400 federal researchers resident in Alaska, some in federal buildings and labs, many dispersed in rented space, others in cooperative research units with the University. DOC/NOAA operates the Auke Bay lab in Juneau, but as a subdivision of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. Similarly, DOI/USGS has an “Alaska Science Center” in Anchorage, but it is relatively new, and its components are not co-located. 4 The University does however allocate a significant percentage (roughly 8%) of its general fund appropriation to research, and this yields good return on investment. 5 See http://www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/ethics.html 6 In this section, we will comment on environmental aspects of fisheries related R&D; other aspects such as technology and market research are covered under the section on economy. 7 See Krupnik, Igor, and Dyanna Jolly, editors, The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change, Fairbanks, AK: Arctic Research Consortium, 2002 8 See the discussion and figure in the section on A Common Need: Resource Assessment and Monitoring 9 In addition to the payoffs from improved assessment of development opportunities, minimization of impact from extractive industry, and improved safety and health of Alaskans, the monitoring systems themselves would provide new business opportunities in areas such as network design and operations, instrument and sensor development, data base construction and management, modeling, and field site installation and operations. As similar networks are constructed elsewhere, e.g. as part of IOOS, such skills are exportable. 10 These numbers vary depending on source. Here, most statistics are from “Trends in Alaska’s People and Economy”, prepared by UAA’s Institute of Social and Economic Research for the Alaska 20/20 Partnership, October 2001 11 Trust lands (municipal, UA, mental health) account for another 2 million acres, and 3 million acres -- an average of almost 5 acres per citizen -- are in individual private hands. 12 And where the Permanent Fund Dividend accounts for 21% -- three times the state average -- of per capita income from wages and transfer payments. 13 We acknowledge the contributions of a proposal from Prof. F. S. Chapin of UAF for an EPSCoR research focus area in Regional Resilience and Adaptation, to this section. 14 Examples of these changes include the provisions of NCLB, the required adherence to NCATE standards, the Alaska Quality Schools Initiative, and the requirement for equity in facilities and opportunity when there are at least the required minimum number of children eligible to attend elementary and secondary school in a district’s attendance area. 15 UA currently prepares only 30% of the state’s teachers, although the new Bachelor’s in elementary education program should soon improve this statistic. 16 See “A Market Sustainable Future: A Closer Look at Alaska’s Economy” and ASTF’s “Long Term Economic Development Strategy” 17 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Research Statistics, Science and Engineering Indicators. 1999 data 18 NSF Report, ASTF High Tech Index 19 Scott Goldsmith, ASTF Long Term Strategy 20 See Working Group 6 paper 21 “Implementation of the Initial US Integrated Ocean Observing System”, Part 1: Purpose and Governance, Prepared by Ocean.US under the Auspices of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, January 2003 22 Cooperative Research Centers are an Australian mechanism for building academic-industrial partnerships in topics of particular interest to the nation. See www.dist.gov.au/crc Download 338.85 Kb. Share with your friends:
|