you need the engineer there for a certain thing, you need the academic perspective for a certain thing, you need the agency folks there to bring their perspective and their utilitarian need of that study. But as the program officer, you're the one that gets to see all of those. And it could be that those people in that consensus discussion don't fully appreciate the background that those other folks are bringing. And so it's a really fun part of the job to think about that going forward. And if you do leave the academies, how you play that out in your next roles and in your next positions, because I think that's a really unique and valuable experience that a lot of people don't get to have. So and I do have fun, fun stories to tell, if you know you know about some of the board meetings and the after parties and things that used to happen at those in person meetings. But I've I've promised I wouldn't share too many of them. But it's lovely to see everybody again. So thank you for the invitation, Sue. I listen to this. I hear about parties. I hear about Dr. Pepper. I hear about road trips. What happened my six years? This is my cue to give Bob permission to tell a third story. Oh, I'm going to get that permission. Okay, well, this sorry, can I do it? Okay. This story is also about a liquid. It's not Dr. Pepper. And it's about someone who is here and who will be talking with me in just a few minutes about a report. But that story is not about that report. The story is about Margaret Linen. Margaret Linen and I go way back to the late 70s. She got a PhD 1979, I believe at Rhode Island. And we were in the faculty there for a number of years. We were in the administration for a number of years. And when I left Rhode Island to go to Texas, Margaret became the Dean of the Oceanography School there. And we have a number of things of interest that are in common. We both like and collect Navajo rugs, which are wonderful, wonderful things. And we also both like a liquid that is not Dr. Pepper. It's single malt Scotch whiskey. Actually, that's a side story. I first had whiskey in Alaska. And then from your predecessor as Dean there, Vera Alexander was Vera Dugdale back in 1964. That's where it all started for me for single malt Scotch. But Margaret loved single malt Scotch. And another thing we have in common. And this follows in from Jim Baker, who was the founder of the Oceanography Society and its first president. Arnold Gordon was the second president. Margaret was the third president of the Oceanography Society. And I was the fourth. And the fourth meeting was held in Paris. And Mary Margaret by that time was at the National Science Foundation. And she so very kindly bought a very special bottle of Scotch to bring to me to present to me as I became president of the Oceanography Society. Her favorite distillery is Talisker on the Isle of Skye. Mine is McAllen. And one of the iconic single malt Scotches anywhere is 25 year McAllen. I don't know how much, how many hundreds of dollars Margaret paid for that bottle, but I checked last weekend on the price and now a 25 year McAllen now costs over $3,000 for one bottle. And I know it was hundreds in those times too. So as I said, Margaret was at NSF and she was flying to Paris, went to Dulles, put the bottle on the X-ray machine, it came out one end and fell off and broke. Margaret told me this when she got to Paris. I don't know who felt worse, Margaret or me, but she went and got another very nice, was a vetted malt. It was very, very nice. But to this day, I still never, and I collect single malt Scotches. I have 179 single malt Scotches in my collection. If any of you like Scotch and are in near Austin, Texas, come by and try them. But I have still, to this day, never tasted 25 year McAllen. Thank you, Mark. But the important thing is, yes, the important thing is was how thoughtful that was. And I, it's, it can not be appreciated more. I mean, the thought was worth a lot more than the bottle. Thank you, Margaret. I want to thank all of our panelists. Jim, did you have something else you wanted to share? I wasn't sure. Jim? Yeah. There we go. I think the main thing I think is important about the Ocean Studies Board, and it certainly was for me, was like a home away from home. At your own institution, you know the people there and you have a relationship with the younger faculty and the older faculty and the students, but you're limited in the breadth of things that you can understand and do. And oceanography is such a broad subject that it's hard to have all of it in one place. And the Ocean Studies Board brings people together in that way. I think I said to Bruce Alberts at one point, I think in a way the Ocean Studies Board is most important for young scientists because it gives them a chance to talk to other scientists of their same age or older. They can, they can see how the older oceanographers act, what they do when they sit at a committee meeting, how they intervene or what they do, you know, how do they actually dress, all of these things that you're not necessarily going to learn at your own home institution. And there's no question that the academy has played that role. And I think particularly in oceanography because it is so broad in its disciplines. But to me, that's a critical role as an academy and in providing a home for young oceanographers to interact. And you know, older ones too, to talk about new programs that you can't really do so easily when you're just sitting at home. So it's an important part of the American science establishment. And it's been particularly important for oceanography and certainly been a lot of fun for me to be involved in lots of different phases of the Ocean Studies Board. Yeah, so we have the, you know, the usual duel between the chair and the director here. But it's my turn now. It's always my turn. Yeah, what can I say? So it's really a pleasure now kind of to move on to our next report. And so yeah, the panelists want to move or you want to stay, it's, you know, it doesn't matter. But we do have, this was really interesting as well in terms of the voting. So we had a lot of votes for several of the reports in the marine mammals and noise or marine mammals and sound series. But we also had a lot of votes for it as a series in the whole. So we gave people the option, you could say, you know, I want to vote for this report or I want to vote for the series. And we had, I think maybe three, and oil in the sea was one, and the marine mammals and sound was the other. But to put together, this series probably garnered the most votes, but I didn't count it that way. But it is, it certainly has been I think a very influential series through the years. And I'm so pleased that we have three people joining us and Peter Tyak, who was on, I think several of these, he was also a member of the Ocean Studies Board. And he chaired the last round of this. So it's really a pleasure to have Peter here, Mike Weiss, who's at the Office of Naval Research. And of course, Mike was the one, you know, sort of the most recent one who is the program manager. So without Mike's initiative, you know, that wouldn't have happened. And then Kim Waddell, who is the study director, and it's really a pleasure, you know, Kim just happened to be in town. He's currently at the University of the Virgin Islands. So it's really, you know, a pleasure to welcome Kim back. And I will say, I know I've heard this from, you know, more, more than one person that the great joy of serving on one of Kim's committees is he has the best taste in restaurants and wine. So take it away. Well, thank you. And good afternoon, everyone. It's I've been out of the country or away from the Washington D.C. for about five, six years now. And it's it's really great to be back and see so many familiar faces. And following many of the previous comments, I, too, learned a great deal in my tenure here at the Ocean Studies Board. I'm a terrestrial ecologist by training. So I really felt like a fish out of water when I came here. But I had a chance to work with Sue when we were both study directors on a non native oyster study and focusing on the Chesapeake and my love of food and wine complimented the issue of oysters and champagne. So I endeared myself to her and program here and had a chance to work with her later when we had a chance to work with Larry Mayer on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But today, I'm going to speak more to this series of reports that we've done that OSB has done on marine mammals and noise.  And so some of my opening comments are fairly basic, but I'll start with the Marine Mammal Protection Act that was, you know, that was really innovative policy that was developed in 1972. And it was an opportunity where we collectively, the federal government and the nation recognized marine mammals as a, you know, valued natural resource that should be protected. But at the same time, it was recognized that human activities impact these animals. And so when the Marine Mammal Protection Act came up again for reauthorization in the early 90s, the debate really centered around the conflicting demands between protecting and conserving marine mammals and the, you know, allowing human activity that are considered important to the nation, some of the damages that they might impact marine mammals and specifically low frequency sound. So this issue really garnered a lot of national attention because there was a proposal at the time to repeatedly measure the speed of sound in the ocean over time to help determine whether the ocean and the atmosphere were actually indeed warming up. And this was part of the acoustic thermometry of ocean climate, the ATO. Anyway, low frequency sound, as all of you know, is an important research tool, both in geophysics, biological oceanography, and so forth. And so the NRC at the time formed a committee on low frequency sound under the auspices of ocean studies board. And this was the first of five committees that span over the next 25 years. And so as Sue mentioned, I had the privilege of working on that last report, the 2017 report, that looked at the topic of marine mammals noise and other stressors. So I'm just going to briefly recap the reports, just what they were trying to do. And then I'm going to turn it over to my colleagues on the Zoom here. So the 1994 report, the initial report, that really provided an initial survey of our understanding of the impacts of noise on marine mammals. That was followed by the 2000 report, and that reviewed the research as part of that ATOC experiments. And then together, those two reports really sort of laid out a number of recommendations that some were followed, some were like all NRC reports, some were ignored or pushed aside. But the 2003 report evaluated human and natural contribution to marine ambient noise and their trends. They also outlined the research needs to evaluate the impacts. They also wanted to identify gaps in the noise databases, what we understood, where we saw noise. And then finally, make recommendations for developing a model for noise across sort of a spatial, temporal, frequency dependent variables. And then then finally in 2005, it was the first report specifically focusing on biological significance, specifically the scientific challenges of using short-term observations at the level of individuals, but how that then predicts effects on populations. And so then the final report in that series, and again the one that Peter Tyack and I were responsible for, that was the focused on the sound and other stressors that use our ocean acidification, anoxia, ocean warming, fishing and pollution, just to mention a few. And so those cumulative stressors, how do we measure them, evaluate them on marine mammals? So with that note, I'll turn it over to Peter to fill in the gaps if I missed anything in my introduction. Thanks so much, Kim. Hello from Scotland. I'd like to just confirm that you're hearing okay? Yes. Sound okay? Sound is good. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Steve. Yes, let me, if we can go back one slide, I just like would like to make a brief point about the progression that we have of these reports. The first report did a sort of a normal review of current knowledge and assessment of future needs, and all immediately pointed out regulatory problems. By the 2000 report, I'd just like to note a similarity to a comment that John Franklin made about impacts of oil as a stressor. The two series of reports are similar in one sense in that they look at the impact of two different stressors on the ocean environment. And in some sense, this is a very practical applied problem. But by 2000, it was really clear that it was advances in the underlying science, development and technology, and improvements in math and statistical analysis that was really critical for progress in the applied problem. And actually, there was an enormous amount of synergy back and forth between the societal recognition of how serious these two issues were and the developing science. So I think there is an important similarity there. By the 2003 report, this was led by an ocean acquisition, George Frisk, and this also emphasized the importance of modeling and databases, along with analyzing sources of sound, the long-term trend, the kind of typical ocean science attention to scales of analysis. And I think that by this point, it was very important that one needed to think about developing models and thinking carefully about what field observations and controlled laboratory experiments were required to reduce our uncertainty. We then had a pretty big transition from a narrow focus on effects of noise in the short term on marine mammals to these impacts on populations. And I'd like to go over the next slide to show the basic structure of a model that this report came up with, which has been quite important in our area. It starts with the stressor sound on the upper left and the pluses inside the box so that we really understand and can characterize the characteristics of natural and anthropogenic sound in the ocean very precisely. And we have reasonable evidence and methods to be able to predict what kind of changes in behavior occur because of exposure to sound and some information about what impact these changes in behavior have on survival, feeding, breeding of the populations. But this report pointed out that we have basically no evidence on how those changes in those life functions affect the survival and reproduction of the whole population. Once we know changes in vital rates, then we have great methods to predict population effects. So this, I think, one of the important elements of this report was to point out a critical data gap and led to a series of studies that Mike Weese will describe later. So this stimulated a significant amount of research and had significant impacts on the regulatory structure. The next slide shows yet another stage of broadening, not just looking at short-term consequences of noise and behavior of mean mammals, but also it looks at a broader set of population consequences of cumulative exposure to multiple stressors. So the title of this report was approaches to understanding the cumulative effects of stressors on marine mammals. And in terms of environmental assessment and policy, cumulative effects typically means what's the impact of a proposed human action given all of the past, present, and conceivable future actions that may be taken by humans. This report says that that is not a very useful way to try to estimate the impacts of multiple stressors. Rather, it takes a cumulative risk approach similar to what the EPA has used for exposure to chemical stressors. And so this model shows that this general structure, it's a conceptual model showing that ecological drivers can affect the exposure to stressors. Those will change the physiology of different individuals. The physiology may change behavior and both of those may change the health of an individual. And an important element of this model was developing a health box or a health indicator to help fill that gap that was present in the population consequences of disturbance model. And that yields a similar pattern to vital rates and population dynamics. The thing that's different here is this is focusing on exposure to multiple stressors, not just noise. And it was in response to the need as studies developed less uncertainty about the impact of noise on marine mammals than the issue about the cumulative impact of noise and other stressors raised to the fore. And this report has basically highlighted that we have neither the analytical methods nor the data to answer the regulatory requirements for estimating cumulative effects. The next slide will show some continuous trends across these different themes, even though they focused on slightly different elements. By the 1994 report, I mentioned they talked about regulatory issues. And this report raised the point that there are really serious problems with a single threshold, sort of like a 55 mile an hour speed limit, for a sound above which the probability of response is one and below which the probability of response is zero. The 2000s report also highlighted these issues. And by 2014, Mike is going to describe the development of research projects, which led to papers that could develop probabilistic dose response functions for marine mammal behavioral responses to sound. The 2017 report emphasizes the importance of dose response functions for each stressor to predict how different stressors may interact. And research that was stimulated by these reports has demonstrated that using that all or nothing threshold, which US and many international regulators use to regulate sound, they underestimate the number of animals disturbed by a factor of about 280. So if you use the dose response curve on the upper right to predict how animals, whether animals will be affected by sound and use a normal sound propagation profile typical of many places where these animals live, on the bottom map, the red dots indicate animals expected to respond and the black dots indicate animals expected not to respond. The 0.5 probability of response occurs in a tiny area near the center of this and very few animals are involved here. As you go further out, there are such large areas of low exposure, but exposure at which some animals may respond, that drives the total number of animals taken. So this kind of analysis has shown that the current procedures by which the US and many nations estimate the impact of sound are fundamentally flawed and really need to be changed and incorporate those response functions to answer these questions. And if we hit the, it won't be the next slide, but the next image here, Mike, that will show data that there's been work since the 2017 report, a new paper that explores how to estimate the response surface for interactions between two stressors when the two different stressors affect the same response. This explores both empirical and theoretical ways to narrow our uncertainty about that. So this work has led to, I think, considerable to important highlighting of areas where we have ignorance, both in terms of theoretical methods and data, and is moving towards providing answers to these questions in ways that I certainly would have never have anticipated when we were starting each report. I'd like to now switch to Mike who will be describing the further development of projects and regulatory impact. Good morning. Can everybody hear me? Hi, Mike. We can hear you very clearly. Great. Well, good morning. I know we're running on time here, so I'll try to be quick. So I did want to provide an agency or funding sponsor kind of perspective on some of these different reports. I think it's safe to say some of those early reports were influential, if not foundational, to the creation of the O&R program and the other Navy programs and hugely influential with other agencies and the focus on sound. So I think that's safe to say. I came in the door about 2008 where the 2005 report pictured here was hot off the presses. Our purpose in our O&R's topic with the PCOT is to develop these statistical models linking both behavior and physiology, the newest model pictured down in the bottom right there or newer model in 2013, linking those to the biologically significant effects. I do want to say, though, stepping back with the working groups, we started in 2009, a second one round that took us through about 2015. We started with, excuse me, really exploring if and we could even translate these into mathematical frameworks. So this conceptual model, could we even make that link between short-term disturbance and population level effects? So it was really exploratory at the beginning. So I think, while today it's being applied across a number of different systems and by investigators around the world, I think it's important to recognize back at the beginning, it was very exploratory in nature thanks to the 2005 report for framing that up. We started with a case studies listed there, elephant seals led by one of your OSB members, Dan Costick, Santa Cruz. A lot of those dolphins, North Atlantic right whales and beak whales. You'll see a theme across several of the projects here where we try to get that texanomic breadth across marine mammal species types to explore the application and development and application of these models. After the working groups, we continue down this thread. This has been an area of kind of multiple millions of dollars of investment over the last decade plus. So today, again, there's a suite of models that can be used and are being applied in different areas. They are very data hungry. So that does limit it, but the models really are well developed. Let's see, trying to get to the next slide here. There we go. So we've been on again. You've seen this from Peter's report. I do want to mention the cumulative effects report picture there are co-sponsors with NOAA Bollum and the Marine Mammal Commission. So definitely multiple agency interests in this topic. But a very difficult question trying to look at multiple stressors and also the interaction of those stressors. So I want to really tip my hat to SIRDUP, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program. A couple years after the 2017 report, SIRDUP was willing to take on the topic. They worked closely with Navy on some of those topics that might be quite difficult and out of reach. So we partnered with them using a similar framework with the working group and then several funded studies listed there. Again, you'll notice across taxonomic species from dolphins to right whales and again elephant seals. And then one additional project at the bottom there, O&R partnered up with the Department of Energy doing some gray whale work off the Oregon coast. So again, a series of products here that really are trying to, again, acting as case studies to explore the interaction of those stressors. Again, if they're additive, synergistic, or potentially even antagonistic. One exciting additional development, and this was conceptual, but now in practice is we started this with Marine Mammals working with SIRDUP back in 2020 with the idea that down the line, and it turns out as of this year, SIRDUP is now funding a handful of studies looking at multiple stressors in terrestrial systems. So we're very excited with Peter's lead on the cumulative effects group to start interacting with that terrestrial group to start sharing notes and whatnot. One slide here that might seem off topic is this is, I'm sorry, going back to the 2005 report, there was one recommendation in there, recommendation number four that suggested that we needed to assess the stress response in Marine Mammals to explore that physiological response and influence it might have on populations. This is an area, this is one project listed here. This was came out of Dan Costa's lab with Dan Crocker, it's no mistake leading it. But just an example of one of many studies that we initiated starting in 2011 to really explore this topic of the physiological response, starting with a lot of the glucoporticoid steroids and looking at these various sample matrices, developing those so we could understand what we were seeing blood, fur, vicarice, blover. It became clear that baseline was critical because those changed quite a bit, and hormones unfortunately are messy and all that variability. So some of the other markers have been developed across multiple species now using proteomics and metabolomics. And again in the bottom right there is pictured that physiological link from physiological change to have that health boxes where that stress topic has really developed and continues to this day. So starting back again from the 2005 report recommendation number four. And then the last slide, this is again the 2013 representation of the PCOD conceptual model disturbance all the way over to population level effects. And overlaid on that is really the regulatory framework in the U.S. And this has really helped us to start thinking about since the late 2000s, how we're doing these risk assessment models. So we are understanding that a lot of the exposure, right, the sound exposure modeling that all agencies are required to do to assess their potential effects, that's on the left side of this model, whereas then the regulator is required to do a negligible impact determination, and then issue letters of authorization for Navy activities and other activities across the board. And so you can see that's quite a span when you're looking at that model. So it's become critically important not only in being able to implement those models, but I think it's been foundational in how we think about the sound exposure modeling and linking that to negligible impact determination. So it's been hugely influential. And to this day, we continue with Navy and other agencies, I believe, having discussions with the regulator about making that link between the modeling and the negligible impact determination. So again, all comes back to that 2005 report. And again, the influential 2017 report is we're just kind of getting the train out of the station on a number of studies, a lot of exciting work, but very excited to see where that goes over the coming years. So with that, we'll thank everybody for their time and attention. And of course, thanks to the academies for their support in this series of sound non-brain models. Thank you, Peter and Mike. And yeah, just again, I know you can't hear it, but we had a nice round of applause for your presentations today. And then so now we're going to move on. The next winner of our greatest hits is a review of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy. And it gives me the opportunity to reintroduce Bob Deuce, who was a co-chair of that committee and also Margaret Lyman, who at the time was at NSF. So, Bob, are you going to lead off? I'll just have a few starting remarks. Yes, Nancy Target was a co-chair of this committee. What we're going to do, Margaret and I, is Margaret is going to give the background for the whole not only our report, but of course, the Ocean Research Priority Plan that was developed amongst the many agencies. This was a very exciting effort in those times. And Margaret was right in the middle leading that effort. And then I'll say a little bit about the Academy's report, which was a review of that effort. And then Margaret will finish up with a little bit about the impact of both our Academy report and the Ocean Research Priority Plan report. So, Margaret. Great. Thanks, Bob. This, like the report that Larry talked about, was a little different. It wasn't the Academy deciding to articulate research priorities, but the group of federal agencies doing that and then saying to the Academy, we'd like to have this reviewed. And I'd like to give a little bit of history in the same way that Jim Baker did about the internal to the federal government, the role of oceans and groups that look at oceans in an integrative fashion. So the administrative input to the U.S. government comes through, on science, comes through the National Science and Technology Council, which was first formed in 1993 under President Clinton. And one of the committees of that council is the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and now Sustainability. And Jim Baker was one of the chairs of that committee. You can see the tracks, the large footprints of Jim Baker across our field for decades. And the CENR at the time had several subcommittees, but nothing related to the ocean. The ocean was subsumed in other committees. In 2004, when the Bush administration came in, it created the Committee on Ocean Policy as a high-level group to advise the federal government on oceans. And it created the Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology as a working-level group. And Joint was because it reported to both the Committee on Ocean Policy and the CENR. And it comprised the primary representatives of ocean, S&T, at all of the agencies of federal government that either did that or had an interest in it. And so it was a new committee. And NOAA and NSF were to be co-chairs of the committee together with OSTP. So Rick Spinrad was the head of Ocean and Atmosphere Research at the time. So he was the NOAA representative. I was the head of Geoscience. So I was the NSF representative. And David Halpern was on detailed OSTP. So he became the OSTP representative. And we were co-chairs. And we had several of those interesting after-hours discussions about what this group could do and what was the most important thing for it to do, given that it was brand new and could decide what role it should have. And we decided early on that what we would do was challenge the group to set priorities for ocean research. And we were taking as a model the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which had a little more trouble establishing priorities. But it attempted to do that. We did not know whether we could do that. But we had a remarkable set of colleagues at the JSAST at the time. Jack K. from NASA. Frank Her from ONR. And Tom Drake was also involved. Dave Balton from state. Jim Kendall from what is now BOEM. And others. But that group was really the group that said, yes, we'll help you make sure that we get to priorities. So I asked Rick and David Helper to give me anecdotes as well. So the first one comes from Rick. My first anecdote involves the then young woman who is my Sea Grant fellow and whose first task was to help me staff for the JSAST. And that was the remarkable Shelby Walker. She went on to one of our first meetings, which had the usual mix of insight, woody banter, and a touch of nuanced snarkiness from a few of the participants not to be named. After the meeting, I asked her what she thought of the meeting and she said, nobody seemed to agree, but they were all so much more polite than I thought they would be. And I thought that summed it up nicely. So because this was meant to be an administrative committee and administrative priorities, we really had no mandate to go out to the community. But, you know, having come from the community, we knew that we needed to do that. So we developed a couple of public sections and the largest one was in Denver. And one of Dave Helper's comments from that was, during the all hands community wide meeting in Denver, I really learned the meaning of the DC expression of how making policy is similar to making sausage. Another anecdote from Rick, the second anecdote comes when we were at the stage of aggressively engaging the user community. We agreed that we should bring in as diverse a group of stakeholders as possible. And we met in a large auditorium in Denver. It was an extraordinary meeting, including educators, researchers, conservationists, politicians, lobbyists, environmentalists, industry type students, coastal managers, etc. Do you remember at one point one of the speakers stood up and started by stating that he thought he was at a village people concert?  After several efforts where we thought it would fall apart because of lack of agreement or lack of the agencies allowing the representative to agree to a to prioritization where their priorities were not the top one or two. We had been talking to the Academy for some time about reviewing the document. And we agreed that a review of an advanced draft would really be helpful because then we could respond to it instead of giving you the final draft and then, you know, taking the slings and arrows. So that was how the committee came to be, how the decision to do priorities came to be, and how we asked the Academy. So with that, I will turn it over to Bob. Okay, thank you, Margaret. You can see that Margaret and I are breaking new ground here because we're not using PowerPoint. And I'm sorry about that, but that's what we felt to do. Margaret pointed out that the report was really in two parts. The first part, a draft, which came after the Denver meeting, and our committee was at the Denver meeting and participated in that meeting as well, that we were to review that part and then... It may have been Bob that thought it was, it may have been Bob that thought it was the village people. I wish I'd been that smart to think of that, but I didn't unfortunately. And the second part, so we reviewed the first part. The second part, they revised the plan and also put an implementation part on that second part. So there were some successes of the first part. The central link between the ocean and society was very well articulated. It was very clear. They had six broad themes, among them climate, ecosystem health, human health, etc. And they captured most of the ocean related issues facing our society. The role of research in improving technology and monitoring and management and fundamental understanding of the ocean was well articulated and recognized. And research priorities in the social sciences were also included. So those were some of the successes of the first part of the report. And we had some recommendations on that. We thought that there wasn't really a bold and compelling vision for the future of ocean sciences research in that early draft. And we suggested that that should be provided. And a more comprehensive description of the needs and opportunities for multidisciplinary research and partnerships could be included as well. We felt that the goals and challenges and research priorities of the plan could be related better, perhaps to existing programs that already were in place, as well as the new initiatives. And finally, maybe a section on cross-cutting elements that are central to the overall vision should be included. So they came out with just a few months later a second draft. And the successes of the second draft were very significant. They had thoughtfully considered the comments by our committee, but also from the community, because the community was involved in this all the way along. And they had developed a really clear vision, clear and coherent vision statement, which was part of the document. It was restructured, much more readable, et cetera. It was really a much stronger document. And they provided a clear executive summary. We still had some recommendations, but they were mainly that as this program developed, that the external committees should be established to provide independent and credible advice to the JSOHST as this moved along. And a program office should be set up and finally continue and expand their regular outreach to the community concerning the activities and progress and planning of the ocean research priorities and implementation strategy. That's where we, that's what we did. I should point out that Marsha McNutt was one of the reviewers of our report. Ken Brink was in charge of looking at our response to the reviewers of our report and whether we had done a good job with doing that. And Jim Sancherico who is left was actually a committee member on this report. And I'll move it back to Margaret now. Thanks, Bob. One of the things he didn't say was the committee was especially critical of the fact that we had 20 priorities. So did we really have priorities? And that I believe every one of them started with better understand blah, blah, blah. The words I tell everybody never put that in. Now I say that. And that they really weren't priorities. They were saying understand the ecology of the ocean or something. So when the new report came out, the executive summary that Bob talked about really had the priorities in it. And to emphasize that they were in a different color font than the others. And they were develop the capability to forecast key ocean and ocean influence processes and phenomena, provide scientific support for ecosystem-based management and deploy an ocean-observing system. Those are priorities. And I think that when we look back, this was the time at which the agencies really started looking at developing actionable models by putting together observations and scientific models. And that many of the models we use now for, for example, sea level rise hazards for dealing with harmful algal blooms and so forth derived from that approach of not saying, you know, give us a scientific model, but give us a scientific model that together with observations can be used to reduce harm, to take action. And I think that that was, and Noah of course was a real leader in that sense. That's their responsibility. The scientific support for ecosystem-based management. The community had been talking about ecosystem-based management for a long time, but it hadn't made its way into the, that being the focus. For example, with fisheries, it was, you know, manage the fishery by managing catch rather than manage the fishery by ecosystem-based management. And this was really, I think that the government really took that on board. And then of course, the ocean observing system in all of its multifaceted incarnations has been a major continuing commitment from the government.  And it's not going to happen. But I think that there were real advantages. And then Dave Halpern in another one of his comments was that he thought the most important legacy was that this ocean subcommittee in the federal government was put in place and continues and that it set priorities and has set priorities every time, you know, multiple times since. Independent of party affiliation of the administration and although the names on the bodies are slightly altered by every new administration. So that's some of the impacts. I'm a storyteller. So I have to tell one more story, but if it was related to this at the Denver meeting, which had somewhere between 250 and 300 people, I think it was quite large, not as large as they'd hoped, but it was still quite large. It was at a hotel and the meeting ended in the afternoon and then people could go get their flights. And so when I checked out of the hotel, I put my suitcase in my car in the garage in the trunk and went down to the meeting. When the meeting was over, I came back to my car, opened the trunk to put my computer in there and the car had been rifled. My suitcase was wide open. Everything was thrown all over the place. But fortunately, I had not put my computer in there. And so I really didn't lose too much. But that's one of the things that I will always remember about this report. Well, thank you both to Bob and Margaret for that. And I'll also thank Margaret for reaching out to Rick and to Dave as well to get their feedback. It was really enriching, I think, to get their feedback too. Now we're going to move on. The next report is from 2010 and it's Ocean of Certification, a national strategy to meet the challenges of a changing ocean. And Libby Jude is here with us and online is Jorge Corridor, who is one of the committee members. Well, thank you very much. Good. Thank you. All right. Very well. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to say hello to all those old friends on the board that are there today. And like somebody said, it's like another family. So a pleasure to be back with you again. The subject of our talk today is Ocean of Certification, as you can see from the title. But the title has a subtitle. It's not Ocean of Certification alone. It's a national strategy to meet the challenges of a changing ocean, which brings to mind Dr. Baker's talked earlier this morning about how science and policy can come together difficultly. But we're doing our best. So the origins of this study are two acts of Congress. One of them, can I have the next slide please? The first is the Magnus and Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Reauthorization Act. This is a 30-year-old act that is tried true and has strong bipartisan support. So there was no doubt it would be reauthorized. But the anecdote of the New York Times is that a representative from Washington state slipped this in at the last minute at 3 o'clock in the morning. And what he slipped in, next slide please, was this, pardon me, go back, was this indication that the Secretary of Commerce shall request the National Research Council to conduct a study of the acidification of the oceans and how this process affects the United States. And not only that, but next was the Forum Act of 2007, following close on its heels, a bill to establish an interagency committee to develop an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan and to establish an ocean acidification program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. So there you go, an act that can be acted upon. Next please. Next slide. Okay, the Federal Sponsors, pardon me, go back. The Federal Sponsors were of course NOAA, which was called upon, and the National Science Foundation, NASA and the USCS, stepped up as well. These three agencies together with NOAA have been very active in acidification, as has been EPA. Next slide, please. The Statement of Tax of Task, pardon me, was of course to review the current knowledge to identify critical uncertainties and impacts and information to facilitate research, decision making for mitigation and adaptation. And of course the recommendation that research and monitoring and assessment for federal agencies and scientific community and other partners, including a strategy for developing a comprehensive coordination agency program to address the high priority information needs. So fortunately Dr. Libby Jewett is here with us today and she will talk about the implementation. Next please. So just to set the stage for what we knew at the moment, and this is around about 2009-2010, and the ocean acidification community, which had been a quiet little community, was now on the spotlight. And fortunately there had been a number of papers that have come out, and I put to the first one in the middle a rebossed decadal time series of pH and CO2. By that time our colleagues at the hot station, the Hawaii Ocean Time Station, had already established a decadal view of ocean acidification, that is the loss of pH, the decrease in pH, and had correlated it very closely to partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean, and not only that, but to the NOAA observatory observation. So we had inequivocal proof of ocean acidification. Not only that, but up at the right hand corner, so up right hand corner, we also found out around about then in a a revel lecture delivered by Ken Caldera, in which he opened our eyes to the decadals, to the millennial scale of the of the problem, and how we might find ourselves in an acid bath. The folks at Plymouth, I believe Plymouth Lab, talk about hot, sour, and breathless, the ocean that we're going to have round about then. Hot because of the high temperature, sour because of the acidification, and breathless because of the lack of oxygen due to the heat. So over to the right, there was also a lot of information about the impairment of calcification in some marine organisms, but there was much doubt about about what organisms were affected, and what organisms were not affected. So there was a there was a gap in research right there, which from which we'll hear later on today. There were many other things, like down at the lower right, Dr. Malero's work on the change in speciation and heavy metals, which can be toxic. This is an example for copper, saying that up to 20% of the copper in the ocean will be released into the free form, which is the toxic form. And then again, a noisier ocean on the bottom left hand corner, depicting sections across the Pacific and Atlantic, indicating the how the ocean is getting noisier in the top levels, because this is down to 1000 meters, and how the oceans have already gotten noisier due to acidification. So with this on our plate, and I might say also that the committee was star-studded, as usual, because the board is very careful in choosing the members of the committee, star-studded, except for the messenger here, who's just a member of the committee, and a member of the board. I get the idea. I was the watchman in any case. Dr. Francois Morel, who our chair was not able to attend, so the duty came to me. In any case, you will all recall that the board is very meticulous in choosing the members of the committees. But not only that, if you think you know very much about ocean acidification or any subject you bring up to the board, you'll know that the board knows better. And the board will bring along another selection of top-notch investigators who will teach you the finer points before they even let you put pencils to paper. So after that crash course, then you get to start writing your report. So next slide, please. So the key messages are to be expected. Ocean chemistry is changing at an unprecedented rate due to anthropogenic effects. The changes in seawater chemistry are expected to affect marine organisms that use carbonate to build shells or skeletons. And indeed, there's the toxic nature of the heavy metals, so that must be included, too. And it is currently not known how various marine organisms will acclimate or adapt to the chemical changes resulting from acidification. Next, please. And the national program elements are also what would be expected. And I'll let Libby talk to that. And the next slide, please. A global network, of course, and improvement of the acidification analysis parameters. And finally, the next one, which is our brag sheet, but we've heard much better brag sheets today, so I won't even go through it. Thank you very much. And I think Libby will be talking to us now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jorge. Great to see you there up on the screen. So I'm Libby Jewett, and I am director of NOAA's ocean acidification program, which I was actually hired to found in 2011. So NOAA was both a sponsor and an executing agency. And it's been really thrilling to see the progress that we've made over the past decade. I would say with certainty that we've come a long way. And the National Academy study report really laid out the foundation for the work that we've done over the past decade. It was talking about the observing network. It talked about the development of a national program. And I think we've delivered on many of those. However, there's so much more that we need to understand. So next slide, okay, yep, so you can go to the next slide. And then just click down and I'll speak to that. So obviously the 4M Act actually ended up passing in 2009. And I would hazard a guess that the National Academy study group was convening as the 4M Act was sort of moving forward and likely the same people were influencing both sides of that. So it was really exciting to have both the legislation, but also this like critical report that was coming out and indicating the work we needed to do. I'll also note that this really important thing was happening on the West Coast and the Pacific Northwest and that we were having the oyster hatchery die-offs in just several years prior to this. And now we have an economic driver also pushing all of this effort forward. So I think if we hadn't had all these things sort of congealing at the same time, we may not have made as much progress as we have. So through the 4M Act that set up and so you can keep clicking through set up the interagency working group on ocean acidification, we were I think there were named agencies maybe seven or eight in the act. We now have 13 probably uncounting that sit on the interagency working group. I chair that. So we have the NOAA program was established also in the 4M Act and the chair of the interagency working group is dictated by law to be chaired by NOAA. So it's just a it's like a great cohesive approach. The federal strategic research plan, which originally came out in 2013, we were reading the National Academy study as we were developing that plan as we were doing also in NOAA when we were developing our OA research plan. So like the Marine CDR work, which we were just hearing about earlier today, these National Academy studies, especially the sort of ones that are like early early in the process really can influence the sort of trajectory of the work. A couple of things I'll note here, right in sort of the 20 to 20 every couple of years we have to report out on the spending across all the federal agencies when we started that we were spending maybe a total of under 20, maybe 12 a year. And now we're up to 55 million a year across all of the agencies. We've gotten really good at working together and knowing, you know, what is what you know, what is happening where so that also has improved. We currently now are going to be setting up an OA advisory board. So any of you who might be interested in helping to have some influence on the interagency working group, that's in the process and you'll see FRNs and other public notices coming out over the course of the next year. We in the newer form, so we've been reauthorized now a couple of times. And again, in the original National Academy report already was talking about the social sciences that we needed to bring the human component and potential impacts into the research that has that already was starting to happen. And with the recent reauthorizations, we are about to be released a national vulnerability assessment for covering the entire country, bringing the impacts and potential impacts and connecting that to humans. So it's a pretty powerful report and you know, stay tuned keep an eye out for that. We also through the legislation, and you know, and as part of kind of the broader framework of working on OA, we need to get the information out to people and enable people to share information so we can catalyze kind of leap forward in terms of the work that we need to do. We developed through the interagency working group and ocean acidification information exchange, which anyone can join, you just have to let us know who you are, own up and tell us your affiliations and you can also participate in that exchange. So next slide. So now, yeah, oh, that actually is a good point. We, because of all of this, the National Cattage Report and the Interagency Working Group and the work that NOAA has been doing, I can I can with confidence say that the US is the international leader on NOAA research. We have more publications than any other country by a large degree. So that's really exciting to see. We work collaboratively across the world. We're enabling capacity building work in the developing in developing countries. So it's, you know, it's, it's again, you know, coming back to the National Academy is I think it's was was really leapfrogged us in so in so many directions and the Europeans were ahead of us when we started. So now we're working together and I feel like we caught up and surpassed. So next slide. So in terms of the NOAA program and you just click through yeah. So we in 2010 we came out up out with our research plan. So that was like we were kind of working together and listening and seeing what with the National Academies was coming out with. And we just recently came out with our most recent 2020 Decadal plan. In the program, we now have a long term OA observing network that is quite extensive, not as extensive as scientists might think that we need as far it said. We can't measure everything all the time everywhere, but we're getting closer to that. And we do have and NOAA sort of although NSF actually invests a lot in observing as well and we coordinate across. We have long term time series in more represented by moorings that are both in the open ocean and in coastal systems. We have dedicated coastal cruises around almost all of our US coasts, including in the Pacific Islands. We are developing new technologies and this is like cutting edge right now to look at OA parameters on gliders and floats and other autonomous systems. Again, in order to make sure that we're collecting data that's relevant for modelers who need that broader coverage and higher time series. We're doing lots of biological impacts research and I would say that's NOAA across all of the agencies, including the development of ecological models. We have funded many, many biogeochemical models, both regional ocean ones and earth system models. We're doing these regional vulnerability assessments now where we're bringing social scientists together with biologists together with ocean chemists to be able to connect the entire system and predict where vulnerabilities may exist or where we need to do more research because people are reliant on resources that are potentially vulnerable to ocean classification and are there any adaptation actions that we can take there and we continue to move out robustly on outreach and education. We've been able to engender a pretty broad bipartisan support in Congress. I feel like we're doing a pretty good job on that. Next slide. This is the last one. Big leaps. Obviously in the time that I have, I'm not going to be able to give you a full overview of all of the progress that we've made and I'm happy to talk with people on the break and provide you with more resources. I would say one of the biggest things is that when the National Countries Report came out, we were very focused on the open ocean and we thought the open ocean really reflected kind of what was happening everywhere. Well, the coastal ocean is a much more complicated system. However, I feel like we actually have made a lot of progress and understanding how it's the same, how it's different, what the drivers are. Frankly, if there's more CO2, organisms don't care where that comes from, whether it comes from the atmosphere or it comes from phytoplankton that's decomposing in the bottom water. So it's a complicated system, but we are now through these long-term observing systems and ship surveys have detected and now know that ocean classification is outside of pre-industrial conditions in the open ocean all the time. However, in the coastal ocean, because of that variability, it's just going to take longer to see how that trend develops. Some systems have very successful replanting of seagrass beds and now the pH is going up, which complicates seeing the oceanification signal, but I think we're beginning to get a handle on that. Every system is different. Many systems are different. We're actually also now just recently monitoring in the Great Lakes, not something we were thinking about in the early days and not something we had the funding for, frankly. Obviously, marine life is vulnerable and on the whole, if you look at meta-analyses, we'll see that the marine life in general is having a negative response to oceanification, but there is also resilience in many populations, sometimes even comparing populations that are in estuaries versus outside of estuaries. You'll see resilience in those organisms in estuaries that have been exposed to varying carbonate chemistry over time. So it's a complicated picture. In general, I would say, and I'm sure many of you would agree with me, we know way more about the chemistry than we do about the biology and we have tested thousands of species now. If you look across the world and if you even look across the US, lots of incredible research that's been done and I would say now we're trying to move into detecting those impacts in the field versus in lab experiments and that's a much more trickier enterprise, but I think we're going to figure it out and there are efforts to do that on some of our ship surveys and through OMEX and other approaches, but that was identified in the National Academy study and it continues to be an area that we need to do more work in. We have to do work in a multi-stressor environment. That's what the real world is for organisms for marine life and so in the early days we really focused on just oceanification and kind of pulling out that stressor, but in fact we got to look at how organisms are responding to oceanification and rising temperature and deoxygenization because that's all happening and setting up lab experiments to be able to do that is obviously a complicated process. However, on marine CDR I'll say that the oceanification community and the groundwork that we've laid on science is critical and will be the foundation for the ocean CDR work as well and we're seeing that the same researchers who develop their hypotheses and work in oceanification are now the ones that are being looked to when we try and look at marine CDR clearly related and I think I had a last one which may have been if you want to click, yeah more research, more research is needed on all fronts. We actually did an analysis of the costs of implementing the federal research strategy and we're underfunded by about, we're about at like 20% of what we need in order to really make headway on all of the gaps that we've identified. However, more work to be done and yay national academies thank you. I don't know, Jorge you didn't have anything else to add? Well I did have a question to you Libby and that is about the progress in the interagency working group. I wanted to say that as far as intranoa I personally participated in many of these works in which we did acidification and we did acidification in the context of the coastal ocean observing systems for my part it was IOCARIWE and it was pardon me Caracus and these efforts have been very successful but my question to you is as far as the interagency working group and the stove fight between the inter between the agencies what progress have you made? Well that's a pet peeve of mine and definitely something that we've been trying to break down over time. We do I mean we we obviously meet very often we we've approached our collaborative work in different ways we actually invite other agencies in to review our plans when we're deciding what investments we're making in NOAA with the hope that they'll reveal if they're doing work that maybe redundant with what we're doing. You know the the we share what's happening in particular regions one of one of the really big successes is that every year NOAA we fund a research cruise in a particular region and I think we have just this past year we focus on the east coast and when we do that before we do that we talk to the other agencies and say are you doing any other work that could leverage this cruise and two of the other agencies in particular actually the National Park Service also does observing in the parks and so we make sure we we try and collaborate in a way that they take observations close to the coast in the parks at the same time that the cruise is doing the transit offshore and then the park data actually becomes part of the cruise data set and so we have this sort of you know offshore to inshore coverage the same has been true with the EPA estuary programs they have been sort of building up their ability to measure ocean ocean acidification parameters in particular in estuaries and narrowgans at bay for instance there is monitoring that goes on there and so again we we try and do that coordination we've done the same thing on the west coast and in the Gulf of Mexico so that's that's been a really great way that we've sort of very specifically intangibly coordinated our work across agencies because it is easy to get stove piped but I think one of the advantages of the interagency is that you can if you really work at it you can make sure that the work is leveraged as much as possible well thank you for that lady yeah okay well thank you both I think have a round of applause for them thank you and now for our last report in in this decade it's going to be actually I lost my page it's me it's it's rena yes it's me thank you yes clinical infrastructure and it's rena fine and dead blixon and I should say a program officer when she was working now a board director that she's doing the board on earth sciences and resources and the water science and technology board so so she is yes so I thank you for helping us to celebrate ourselves we don't do that enough in the ocean two things I want to point out are excellence and this idea of consensus and sometimes the two don't go together but at the academy they do and that's an important thing others have discussed what an enriching experience this has been for me being on these reports it's been marvelous in terms of the collaboration with people as well as the science colleagues great and the staff amazing so I want to thank both you and Morgan who I've served under for the excellent people like Deb Glixon like Dan Walker that you bring to these committees so I think I hand it over now to Deb thanks rena I'll pay you later um so I wanted to just briefly mention the statement of task for this study critical infrastructure for ocean research and societal needs in 2030 and I will say that I feel like we got lucky we had a number of stellar report covers but this was one of the most interesting it was based on a workshop that we did during the study and we had a scientific illustrator from Woods Hole Oceanographic who basically sketched out all the things that we talked about and so if you ever have a chance to look at the hard copy of this it actually wraps all the way around it is the coolest cover I ever made um so the statement of task for this this was a study that was sponsored by the subcommittee for ocean science and technology which we'll talk about on another slide and it basically was to identify the major research questions that were anticipated to be at the forefront of ocean science in 2030 and then to think about the categories of infrastructure that needed to be included in planning you may recognize if you were here this morning that that there are some you know similarities to the last thing I tried to talk about um and in that we wanted to really look at what are the new technological and scientific developments what's the interdependence of different assets how changes in the system might affect the demand on infrastructure um how you could use infrastructure for multiple goals the potential for emerging technologies which actually dave titley sort of talked against earlier and and then potential opportunities to phase out programs which is always an interesting one that you very rarely ever see in uh the world of oceanography how might you get rid of something that you don't need anymore um all right next slide please i'm going to pass it back to rena so i'm going to talk about the committee for a second uh eric barron was the chair and during this period he was busy negotiating to be president of penn state so that left deb to pick up the pieces and what she did we had a terrific committee okay deb oh back to me all right so next slide please so as I mentioned the origin of this um it actually started in 2004 with the u.s commission on ocean policy where they they recommended a renewed commitment to ocean science and technology and they formed the subcommittee on ocean science and technology and uh sas asked osb to help to think about what future research infrastructure needs might be for the ocean in 2030 um and rena polled another old report that we did science at sea about how the fleet would be needed to think about these increasingly complex multidisciplinary multi investigator projects which has really turned out to be quite true um and then there is a nice definition of ocean research infrastructure which i'm going to let you read on your own um next slide please so the main recommendations and i i hack these up so they they are not exactly the same as they are in the report but basically that the federal ocean agencies should establish and share coordinated national strategic plan so they really needed to think together about how ocean infrastructure could you know how you would invest in it how you would maintain it and when you might retire things and that the the development and maintenance and replacement of these assets needed to be prioritized based on first on science then on the affordability efficiency and longevity of those assets and then their idea about how they might contribute to other missions or applications um another thing again which was you know we've heard it in other in other reports that there needed to be a review of these shared ocean research assets and the way that they set this whole thing up in the report was that there were these four themes that the committee considered as being really important enabling stewardship of the environment protecting life and property promoting economic vitality and then increasing fundamental scientific understanding um next slide please and so in terms of impacts um basically you know i don't think i wrote a report that was in the ocean studies board that didn't say something about that ships are going to continue to be incredibly important because they are um and so um you know basically the idea was that that there really needed to be a comprehensive long-term you know research like plan for research fleet to retain access to the sea and that's been in numerous you know reports it's been in many academies reports it's been in every report i can think of um that there's a capability needed to access fully impartially ice covered seas in uh this was coming out before the seculia seculia was brought online and now there is an idea for planned coast guard ice breakers and for an nsf Antarctic research vessel so we're seeing sort of a refreshing of of that need for partially infill the ice covered seas um support for continued innovation in ocean infrastructure development which case we've seen a lot in the last you know decade and a half um and one example is in situ biogeochemical sensors and then another quote from this was sort of the next generation has to have a competitive and innovative ocean research enterprise and that included technology um maturation and validation but also promoting education and training um next slide please so back to rena when deb and i talked um she said to me well do you have any funny things or anything you think of about this report and i said no not really the thing that stood out to me was how many good recommendations there were that still haven't been implemented and deb said gee we're on the same page here so um this idea of this shared infrastructure being reviewed on a regular basis was noted in the sea change report and in sustaining ocean observation study and the workshop uh report um the idea of maximizing societal benefit to develop maintain or for or the replacement of ocean infrastructure assets should be prioritized based on something logical like usefulness affordability ability to contribute to other missions as in also discussed in the sustaining ocean observations report this encouragement of high risk activities noted in the un decade larry margaret's report and i will say here that idea of having your ocean shot was just marvelous um i personally watched some younger colleagues work with that and i hope that that continues to go it was really that was good stuff um and the last thing uh this substantial collaboration that's needed amongst the agencies uh we all know that that's been discussed before i thank you i'm gonna add one more thing to the end of this slide sorry rena um i think the thing i would add about this is that um i know most people in this room are probably very familiar with sauced but this report was sponsored by 13 different federal agencies and to be honest i think that's one of the reasons why when you look at that line at the top that says many good ideas weren't acted upon is because it was sponsored by 13 federal agencies it was very hard for any one agency to say oh this is directed at me right it didn't have that same kind of of direction towards one or two federal agencies instead it was the entire ecosystem should consider doing this and i think that made it easier for agencies to not necessarily pick up and run with some of the recommendations that that are pretty common sense so i'll leave on that provocative note all right so we're a little bit behind on time and and unfortunately we really do have to end at a specific time so um we're gonna ask that the the next group kind of move forward and take their their seats at the uh head of the table the former osb chairs and for the rest of you if you want to do a quick bio break get some drinks real quick while that movement is happening um that would be great but we'll make it quick um so and uh if you're on uh zoom you can turn the all right everyone turn on the sound again very so um thank you um i i i had the privilege of chairing the ocean studies board from 1996 to the year 2001 and the overall comment that i would make is that i i feel incredibly grateful appreciative of what a wonderful time i had to be there i mean you had a wonderful staff which we've heard said before but it deserves to be said again uh great board members Reina was on that board among others um but there were other stars that were aligned as well i i was very fortunate that bob gigosian at the uh oceanographic was extremely supportive and uh loaned us uh people for congressional relations as we needed it and we were very fortunate to have built an incredibly uh strong relationship with uh admiral Watkins in core so that for different purposes we could reach out and um have impact in ways that maybe wouldn't wouldn't normally have um trying to find a funny story uh i don't i'm not even sure it's funny but it is a story um there's this uh report which Reina will probably remember uh opportunities in ocean sciences uh it came up because 1998 was the year of the ocean and there were all sorts of activities being planned to celebrate the event including a ocean conference in Monterey so we we thought the board ought to have some voice in the matter so we we created this short report that you could probably read in about 15 minutes uh that summarized some of the uh important problems in the ocean sciences uh and some of the payoffs if you pursue these things um so uh bob gigosian found a way to uh brief president clinton with this report uh using his various influences but he also loaned us the services of bill and a hazy our congressional uh liaison person at wood's hole and bill set up an opportunity for me to go over and brief people on the hill and bill was very enthusiastic and so he he lined up approximately 14 briefings to do in about six hours or less and so uh we got started on these things and uh went through the first six or eight briefings and it got to be lunch time i was supposed to brief somebody over lunch and it became clear that i wasn't going to be able to have lunch and get it to the next thing on time so bill says okay take it from here and then bill gave the entire briefing so uh which was great i really appreciate that and by the time i got to the last one i was talking to uh pennie dalton who's a staffer over there who had a good sense of humor and it's a good thing because i was getting giddy having given this talk 14 times in one day um so uh that's my story um just being here and seeing ken and dan and a bunch of other friends jen and obviously sue is uh is kind of a pleasure when sue approached me a few weeks ago um my first reaction was osb wow that was a long time ago and of course i've been thinking about it ever since and and trying to remember and remembering all the people so thank you sue for dredging up some good memories and maybe some maybe a little pain um and i noticed that in 20 years right we're the old caudges we've been gone for 20 years some things have changed for the better some things have changed for the worse so all this virtual stuff is amazing we that's the fact that you figure out how to do that and made a committee work and came up with the report virtually incredible um some things maybe not so good there's no coffee there is no coffee to be had i don't know what's happened to the national academies but if you can't get a cup of coffee it's the beginning of the end um so thinking about my time as osb director uh what would be of interest what would be worthwhile to share and i had one kind of serious thought and one a bit lighter and the serious thought i had which has really been uh emphasized listening today is the tension in the ocean studies board and it's true across the academy between being a kind of lobbying group for science and being a service group to the government and there were definitely times when um there was conflict between those two things are we you know the nra are we big pharma are we just pushing our own interests we want more money we want more opportunity we want more training more schools more students are we here pushing advancing our interests or are we here to talk about how what we know can help the world can help the country can help advance issues um and of course we heard that talking about all these old reports as well that that tension has been there for a long time apparently still strong and true and i was very sad sorry this is a little bit of a serious note but to read recently about serious conflict or interest issues that have come up in the academies about where we take money from and that was always true back then too who's giving us the money and does that allow us to be truly objective are we trying to please our sponsors or are we really telling it like it is even if we know that they won't like it um and i think do because it is such a serious place and because it does so much worthwhile work it behooves everyone involved even more to think about those issues um to think about whether we are serving ourselves whether we are serving our sponsors or whether we are serving truth apple pie in the american way really true to our true to our scientific values so that was my sort of more serious thought but the other part if so when someone asked me what was it like working at the academies and i was just reminded that just now stacy came up to me and apparently she had asked me before she came to work here what i thought about place which i'd forgotten our conversation um and i probably said to her what i always say to everybody i've had a lot of jobs since i've been on boards of different organizations you are surrounded all the time by smart people and in many areas of life at many kinds of jobs that is not true you're um when you're working here the staff the board members the committee members the the whole organization really you are surrounded by really smart well meaning people who are trying to do the right thing even if i don't always agree with my boy what the right thing is but um it felt great that the however long i spent here 10 years it felt and to this day feels great to have been in an environment where it really mattered it really mattered to be smart and mostly nice um well first of all let me just say i remember this room being big thank you dan can you remember the mic thanks or maybe use more again if it doesn't work there we go there we go okay what i was saying was i remember this room being bigger um i don't go to high school reunion i don't know about the rest of you but i don't go to high school reunions i don't go to family reunions i'm like what have i got to do next week next month i'm just that's just the way i operate but when this came up i could not say no all right so i'm very happy to be here and see many of you again um one of the things that i remember about the academy and and of course like everything else it comes starts with morgan when we were here we had a and you probably still do i mean i haven't been affiliated with osb for 15 years but i can remember closed door discussions about which studies we were going to turn down because they did not fit our definition the the board's definition of our remit and you know that i think that says something you know we were turning down studies because we didn't think they fit what we should be doing or they weren't in the national interest or they weren't in the scientific community's interest um i also remember looking across because i had an opportunity to work with many other boards and board staffs i think the strength of the ocean studies board has always been the diversity of support we've received if you work for some boards where you have one sponsor and you irritate that sponsor you might be looking at layoffs and i can remember that happening in some of the boards when we were around but we enjoyed so much support from such a diverse set of federal agencies state governments nonprofits we were in a position where we could have those kinds of discussions and really you know really try to elevate our game and and i will always remember that the other thing about that i remember working at the academies was it was probably the one place in my entire life where you could really argue with somebody and come away with mutual respect you know i don't know how many of you have worked in a variety of environments but if i was as free with my thoughts today as i was in some of these board meetings as staff and welcome to and welcome to express my opinion i'd be looking for a job so i just you know to me the academy complex i talk about the academy complex and the process i'm working with the american society of civil engineers now and i'm trying to get them to adopt methods and and mechanics that are similar to the function of the governing board of the academy where somebody is really looking holistically about how all the different pieces fit together what studies make sense how they should be populated the committee's populated how they should be reviewed you know i just think the the the process here is just above just second to none but the one story i will share and i don't know how many of you or when is the last time you guys met at woods hole but we were at the cottage house and there was actually a i think it was a seager meeting the commission this would have been before what is it now before dels okay so this is back in the day quite a bit and so morgan and i were having a spirited conversation outside of the building about you know the role of the statement of work yeah statement of work whatever and who should decide and what should be the priority and like morgan and i often have heated exchanges or with mutual respect we just kept elevating and elevating and elevating the volume got higher and higher and higher they finally had to send a staff person out to where we were standing outside to tell us to shut up but i enjoyed every single day that i worked at the ocean studies board working with sue with ed urban with with all of you obviously um it's it it was a sub i mean i worked at the white house i worked at no i worked in private sector none of those those jobs all paled in comparison to the 11 years that i spent here so uh i just hope everybody appreciates what we have nancy we didn't know if we would be able to join us i'm so happy to see you can you hear us oh i didn't see her on the screen yeah i can't hear nancy can you hear i can't hear but i'm reading them oh she must be looking at the subtext okay here but i'm reading them captions it's your turn nancy okay i'm i'm gonna help you catch up with time because of this i have a broken bone in my eye orbit um and so i had a hard time even putting this slide together but i began my working with the ocean studies board in 1999 and i was part of the oil in the sea for that just finished up two years of incredibly hard work and you will see the results of that during that time i finished up with oil in the sea three where jim colman a geologist from lsu was the chair and he asked me you want to be the chair of the ocean studies board and i said me i don't i can't possibly do that uh but but and behold i did i didn't it not get called out for the swimming pool incident but that's okay you can find out about that from others at the meeting and then the water science and then the water science technology board found me and i did a lot of mississippi river work and while i was chair i think richard alley gave a roger revelle commemorative lecture and i said i you know i could do something like that and then in 2011 i was asked to do something like that and i thought oh my gosh i don't know how to do that so i keep learning all the time second slide i just wanted to show this picture if it hasn't shown up yet this is what i call the power woman women i was the first female to break through the glass as a chair of the ocean studies board the first one who came from a southern state louisiana not a pedigree of the kinds that many people have to be chairs of the ocean studies board but i was ready to go my first meeting the discussion was going a little too long and morgan grabbed my gravel and started hitting the desk i said wait a minute that's my gravel because i have a different way of listening to people but anyway some really short tidbits i've had a wonderful time being on the ocean studies board and it was my way to learn about all kinds of people in all walks of life and i really thank you all that's it for me well i gotta thank this panel you know personally because i wouldn't be here if it wasn't for morgan she was the director of the ocean studies board at the time and i can still remember i mean i remember almost everything about coming in and interviewing with morgan and and i remember it was it was it was amazing to me because i'd applied for a lot of jobs before you know i'd gone on the on the academic job search get you know you do several days you give a you know seminar and then you don't hear anything for months and i think morgan called me maybe two days later and said i you know if you want the job seriously i was like oh this is cool and then the other one this was with dan i have to say jen hit it right on the nail you know it was working with this crew that really you know it kept me working at the academies and um so much great advice i got from dan and at urban and i i think i told morgan this once of one of the best things about working for morgan was that she treated us like professionals and that just made the whole job worthwhile for me you know i really felt like i was you know respected and part of the team and so i really i really appreciated her leadership um and i remember dan asking me i guess it was maybe like a couple months after i'd started and you know we all go through this you know you're you're drinking from the fire hose with all this new information and you know a totally different way of working than you've ever even considered before and dan said well so how's it going and i said oh i feel like i died and went to heaven you know and it's because of what morgan said you know that you're working with these really really smart people and who are really dedicated and i found that you know i mean i've been with i've been at the academies for 25 years now and i haven't that opinion hasn't changed in that 25 years i've always really appreciated you know the quality of the staff you know at the ocean studies board at the academies and the quality of the people who are volunteers it's just amazing it really makes this job you know a privilege so just wanted to thank you all i know ken brink was the chair of the board when i first started and he i think it was really ken's initiative that got you know sort of that study that we're going to talk about soon um that became it was started out as the oceans are all in human health the report's called from monsoons to microbes but i think ken was you know certainly one of one of the people who helped us get that work in it was before i even started at the academies so thank you all um we're going to move on now but you guys can stay where you are because i think you're on the agenda so um the next one is the 1992 report oceanography in the next decade and ken's going to talk about that i can say that i think when i i remember now that when i started morgan gave me that report that's like okay you know here's what you need to know about of you know the ocean studies board it's all in that report thank you i need to change tracks here quickly uh the report in question came out in 1992 called oceanography the next decade and it was the decadal report that was prepared by the board as a whole using input collected from the community outside and it served the purpose of a lot of decadal reports it was meant to describe the status of the community and its infrastructure it was meant to point out priorities and directions for research and frankly to brag about accomplishments that have been taking place up to that time um the the report i think uh is a major credit to bill merrill and to arthur noel and arthur took a lot of energy put it into questions of demographics and he did a superb job pulling together that information uh not without uh its blemishes because the kind of information he was trying to gather is so hard to get um before i go on um how many of you remember the last line in the movie castle blankum okay that's relevant to you know into uh what i'm going to be saying um there there in some ways two ways that's relevant what one is um okay i should say what the line is i suppose the last line in castle blankum was i think this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship and indeed this was uh in two levels one was um the um uh report stressed partnerships and specifically between um the federal government and the academic institutions it's a theme that comes up over and over again in the report um but just by absolutely dumb luck uh about the time this report came out uh admo watkins uh who had been um secretary of uh energy and a chair to committee on aids and incredibly distinguished career coming up to that time uh became the head of core uh consortium for ocean research and education so he came in and he was obviously looking for um something to get a handle on so he took this report and went through it with a pencil and he marked it all up and came back and said partnerships we need to stress partnerships and so one thing that came of that uh was the national ocean partnership program which um is still ongoing uh the twist that uh admo watkins added to it was uh that he included the private sector and to this day the the NOP program involves the private sector academics and the government agencies trying to stimulate new lines of research um and another piece of it that i don't know how effective it turned out to be was to put together an ocean research advisory panel that was supposed to help coordinate between institutions and uh agencies and i think that went quiet probably fairly quickly um so um that's that's why i brought in Casablanca because uh that built ties between the board and admo watkins right from the get-go and after that admo watkins was very much our friend uh he uh at one point not too long after that he strongly encouraged me and if you know admo watkins you know what that means uh to get involved in the interaction between state of the ocean and human health and that went on to more that we'll hear about later the other reason i like this report in particular um is comes back to what Arthur Noel did looking at the demographics in the field uh coming up to that time most of the people who were on the ocean studies board had come of age when the time when the ocean sciences were extraordinarily prosperous money almost grew on trees and uh and well but the catch was by the by 1990 or so when this report was coming together uh that wasn't true anymore people couldn't figure out what was going sour and the beauty of what Arthur did was he took a good hard look at the demographics and to make a long story short what he showed was that the population of practicing ocean scientists had more or less doubled in the last decade but the dollars for federal basic research in the ocean sciences adjusted for inflation was about flat and and so this this is we finally understood or at least i finally understood at that point why why the malaise why why we were having such a harder time and uh to my knowledge that study his some something quite like that's never quite been done again because the information's incredibly hard to pull together you know how many not just how many people are in academics but how many people are doing basic research in the ocean sciences because that goes all over the place and likewise uh we tried for Morgan what was it about another 15 years i believe to try to track the dollars going into basic research in the ocean and finally uh somebody whose name i won't repeat threw up his arms and said this is ridiculous i'm not going to give you any more information because of the tracking that information once you get outside NSF or O&R becomes very difficult anyhow so i think it was a huge contribution in terms of what the report laid out in terms of needs i think some of those things are going to be more or less obvious to a lot of us uh it reported on the science at the time it made predictions about where the breakthroughs were going to be in the next decade and you can look back at it and it's about what you'd expect you know where some things were well predicted some things were overly optimistic and some wonderful things were completely unanticipated and if and it would be a sad field if we didn't have those unanticipated victories so thank you now thank you ken the next one is the global ocean observing system users benefits and priorities and it's going to be dan and ken brink so don't go anywhere ken ken did we decide who was going to go first i'm supposed to go first ken you need better staff i did not prevent present or prepare any slides so sorry this report i think was seminal for a variety of different reasons first of all it was my first study at the national academies i think it was first of about 20 studies i was involved with for one way or another but it was also taking place at a time that was i would say not to use an overused pun but it was a bit of a sea change if you look at the academies reports especially ocean studies boards reports leading up to this study which was i think must have started in 96 there's a couple things one this was the first study that i recall or that i see where we really began to look at more than just the impact of activities on ocean science and our understanding of ocean science we brought in aspects that were focused on you know the utility of the data for other purposes we looked at some of the economic impacts associated with ocean observing or what was planned as ocean observing at the time the the study was really driven by these major programs which rena and i will talk about a little bit later where we were you know instrumenting the ocean at a very large scale utilizing new technologies doing synoptic measurements over huge geographies but we were also looking at like well what's the other additional benefit to society of this data and so it took us in a direction that i think was a bit different and that we've replicated many times since then even listening to the briefings of the studies that have been done in the last few years you still see the importance of ocean observing i think i'll leave it to ken to talk about the broader implications of this for ocean science but the idea of coupling taking federally secured data using it for multiple purposes thinking about the cost benefit analysis associated with that and then you look forward to commercialization of data all of the issues that we're still talking about today you know even in today's NOAA rick spinrad who's been part of this discussion going all the way back he was with admiral walkins at core back at the beginning you know we're still talking about this how do we how do we bring greater value to society with this information i work with civil engineers today and and i'm telling you this notion of using ocean observational data especially in the coastal zone is really important i think we have to think about it more in terms of how other communities use the data instead of just how it informs the science which is certainly first and foremost but all of those issues are threaded through this report in this study the other thing that i noticed that i mentioned to ken which you know i think is not inconsequential i did not i was not around when the committee was formed i inherited the committee uh i mean it was a great committee but it was the last all-male committee that i remember being at the ocean studies board and think about that i mean that really wasn't that long ago so you know i i think it was a seminal study in a lot of different ways and and ken can talk more about in terms of the implications for science uh oh okay uh just as a bit of context uh at the time this report was uh commissioned the uh decision had been made that there would be a global ocean observing system and that the motivation was coming mainly from the climate change community they wanted to know to put together a base of observations that could serve climate but this report went into a good deal of specifics about other uses for sustained ocean observations it envisioned an international entity global ocean observing system that would include a set of primarily physical measurements but as you go through the report you there were sections on gee the system could include coastal measurements the system could include uh i believe ocean acidification and there were a lot of non-physical things that were discussed along the way i think the report was a real success in the sense that it looked forward to the ocean observing system that we have today and i think that in the broad outlines that system looks a lot like what you would have expected reading this document um there are routine physical measurements being made in the ocean now coupled to model systems so that you can get on your computer right now and look up the state of the ocean and your favorite place in the ocean we're taking advantage of these coupled models and observations there's some programs part of goose now that were largely unanticipated at the time we did this report like the Argo program which takes advantages of these wonderful vehicles that float around at 2000 meters depth and occasionally come up and take measurements of temperature and salinity and then they broadcast into a satellite we come back down so you get velocity measurements and it's got a huge international contribution uh contribution involved in it i i believe right now there are something like 3,800 of these things out floating around the ocean and the beauty of it is that a smaller country with an interest in the ocean can still contribute they they might only put out five of these floats or something like that but it's scalable and sure the united states is the biggest contributor but everybody can get involved and i don't i couldn't even tell you how many nations are involved in it that's a great program one one thing that didn't turn out quite the way we would have expected when we wrote that report was the coastal aspects of goose there is not a coastal goose that i'm aware of but we have the international the integrated ocean observing system which is is a collection of regional programs with names like near a goose where you're looking around the coast in new england and these things will involve routine measurements coupled to models very much uh tied not so much to climate as to the needs of the local community so for example near the near portland uh main there's a buoy that's out there basically to tell fishermen the fishing community um whether it's foggy out there or not because otherwise it's hard for them to gather that information um very needs oriented at the same time providing sustained time series that are going to be valuable to the scientific community so i i think this has come to a happy ending you know we could always use more and better but at the time we wrote that report i think if we could look at what we have now we'd be very happy we might not have been happy with how long it took to get there but uh i think it really turned out to be a success okay well it's my pleasure again to thank you draw rena back onto the stage okay so two years after dan notes there are no women on the committee he gets me as chair for global ocean science and i think the way we're going to do this dan is you go first and say whatever's on your mind all right thanks rena um it was a real pleasure working with rena um i learned a lot about how to choose hotel properties i do remember that because rena has very high high standards in every aspect of these studies so that was a real pleasure to work with her um i think uh the one thing about this this study was i if i recall correctly i think part of the controversy at the time ocean science and just as it is now was still driven by uh the the vision and the leadership of some rather large institutions and those institutions were very uh important in terms of advocating for certain sub-disciplines of the science and so i think one of the questions that came up was ocean science at that time a large a large portion of the funding was driven by large-scale community-wide major ocean programs uh that that you know large groups of people and large numbers of institutions participated in and i think there was a little bit of it created a dynamic tension between these very large-scale community-driven high priority major ocean programs and um smaller scale uh individual uh scientists kind of more you know maybe provocative or innovative ideas and proposals so that was kind of the backdrop behind what we were doing we wanted to look at the what the successes were what the contributions were whether or not there was an appropriate balance of uh of uh funding and opportunity so that you know the large programs weren't crowding out uh uh other other concepts or other scientific endeavors including you know like use-inspired science so um we had uh we enjoyed very good sponsorship i know nsf was involved oh and r nasa i believe um uh so you know we had a great committee it was a great study we got going and uh got a lot of good work in but i think it was still it was this idea of what's healthy for the community and and how do these programs fit into that so rena go ahead thank you i think you perfectly set stage and with the next we see who the committee members were they were terrific ken was the chair of the osb back then and again this was done under on morgan's watch so thank you uh the statement of task was uh basically to um look at these major ocean programs and examine their role in ocean research and a variety of other things and i'll skip right to the origins um really i think it was in a way a gutsy thing for the nsf in particular to go ahead and sponsor this report because they were asking the academy to take a close look at the way we're funding things um too much core too much too much major ocean programs and there was a feeling amongst a lot of people including their committee of visitors that maybe there's too much emphasis on these big programs but on the other hand the science that was evolving was looking at longer space scales longer time scales and it needed the efforts of more than the individual scientists i'll also point out that the 1992 report oceanography in the next decade um suggested that advice be provided on how these major ocean programs should fit into the overall um research strategy of our country and then this idea that the major ocean programs some of them were sunsetting well how do you sunset them should they be sunsetted should they morph into something else that was all part of what we were being asked to look at here um if i can have the next one and the major recommendations that came out had to do with data sets gee these data sets are more important to not they're more important to the whole community and it's the legacy they leave so we have to be really careful to give them over in a way that's comprehensive there should be a thorough review of other facilities gee i think i talked about that earlier today coordination across agencies did i talk about that today um a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary and research activities no kidding and well-defined procedures for initiating selecting future major ocean programs no one structure should fit every program and there should be coordination amongst the major programs the impacts really there were a lot of breakthroughs um the breakthroughs came in terms of science from the major ocean programs they came in terms of facility and they came in terms of technology the discoveries again that um do i need the next slide thank you the idea that these discoveries the data and the facilities will continue to be used they're still being used and i should say as a disclosure here i am a child of the major ocean programs i grew up with geosex and i'm ending my career with geotraces and um go ship okay that's my confession impacts or influences um it's essential that these datasets um be preserved no kidding that there be planning and the planning involves sharing amongst the different programs for example we recently had recently five years ago had a cruise in the Arctic that was um both go ship and geotraces together um developing mechanisms for contingencies this has come a long way um modeling come a long way we used to have the token modeler on the steering committee okay we've we've changed things thank heavens um the interdisciplinary again i'll give a shout out to the um ocean shot and this idea of tracking key metrics all kinds of metrics how many new pis are here what kind of postdoc um pi turnover is there how many postdoc students looking at things like that and the next slide which is my last one continuing challenges the next slide please thank you um that um this review of facilities is in the critical infrastructure that we talked about uh having well-defined milestones including a clear end for these programs establishing priorities for moving in the long term long time series into an operational mode whatever the hell that is continuing challenges and i thank you well thank you so much rena and dan i know that um even we're still talking about those programs now and we had a lot of discussion about globic on the first day of the meeting during our fishery subcommittee meeting so it's uh it was a really you know important review to undertake thank you um okay we're coming up towards the end and uh in 1999 the academy has published the report from monsoons to microbes understanding the oceans role in human health and this was uh the the study that morgan brought me in to work on so is my first report i'll tell you one interesting little factoid is that back in the day when um the national academy of press didn't make the reports freely available for download as pts we used to sell reports you know some of those some people may remember those days and i think ken probably remembers this can help with this story but this was um it was my first report and it was a report that was for retail sale by the national academy of press which was very unusual for the ocean studies and i think it was ken who told me he actually saw a copy of it for sale in in a borders bookstore still it's quite possible so it was i never had that happen to me again but um surly pompony i think you're on the line and um she's going to talk about the report and then uh rita collwell is here and of course she's probably the person we think of most when we think about the oceans role in human health she was really just such a pioneer in this whole issue so um surly are you there yeah i'm here okay and we do have um some slides are the oh you've got them yeah okay thank you go go surly well same as sue this was my very first uh study as well and i think i'm kind of echoing with nancy rebelle said earlier it's like when i got the phone call it's like would you be interested in serving on this committee i'm like why me um but it was it was my very first study and i thoroughly enjoyed it and let's go to the next slide i think um so this was sponsored by uh no one nasa and and on i h on i h s um and we i'm not sure we had a workshop from did we i you know it's so so long ago so i hardly even remember but we actually met as a committee several times as well i know you have your juniors the tenth was a workshop okay let's go to the next slide because it's it's been a long day um okay and so we had again a committee of experts um bill fennicle who um at the time was uh it was the he was the chair of the study but he was was he's retired now from scripts but very well known renatural products chemists so it was um and same thing with with dana dan was working on renatural products but more in terms of like harmful algal blooms things like that um but we had a like a broad diversity of committee members who were who had expertise in both the harmful aspects of oceans and human health and beneficial aspects of oceans and human health and one of the things let's go to the next slide one of the things i really liked about this study was that it was it was very well balanced so we weren't just dealing with harm like hazards you know the negative uh aspects of the oceans and human health and that and i and i'll tell you just until recently it's mostly been whenever we think about oceans and human health we think about diseases and harmful algal blooms hazards to public health and that the the beneficial aspects of the oceans in relation to human health has kind of gotten the kind of short end of this whole you know this whole emphasis on oceans and human health for for such a long time having said that i will say that um mihs and there and there have been some some joint programs between nsf and mihs and also know as well that have embodied both of those aspects but it's it's really only been more recently i think where there's been a a much larger emphasis on what's you know well the what's now called the blue economy how what are some of the the bioproducts the the things that we can get from the ocean that are can contribute to our economy to our health and so on when we think about just pharmaceuticals marine derived pharmaceuticals it's a multi-billion-dollar annual enterprise so it's it's not insignificant in terms of what the ocean provides in terms of bioproducts and not only not only drugs but also other products that are being used now for regenerative medicine even things that are like bio-inspiration for for architecture skyscrapers and things like that so it's really expanded um i would say that probably the european union has really taken hold of this and has provided significant amounts of funding for blue the blue economy marine biotechnology um and so the the report was but i thought our report was really very well balanced between the positives and the negatives you know the hazards and the benefits and basically what we concluded were that we needed more information resources to improve prediction and prevention of public health disasters that were marine related new technological approaches to help reduce risk to human health and then contributions of marine organisms to to medicine and research so those were the the major the major recommendations and it really led the way for some significant amounts of funding specifically focused on things like harmful algal bloom so i would say and i think i'll just pass this on to dr colwell now who has i think probably more substantive comments to make about impacts of like climate change and just like that so rita this working can you hear me good good um i'd just like to make a comment first of all that i um got home last night from three weeks and the in dubrovnik and trieste in naples so the fact that i have not fallen asleep means that this has been a very interesting day and the other comment is that just two days ago i was looking at a re-re-re-recovered vessel at pompe 2000 years ago fisherman's boat so we've been on the ocean for a long long time as human beings i thought what i would do is take the report predictions and show how it's played out so i'm going to give you some today's data showing that what we said we should do 20 years ago it's almost 25 years ago this report we have been doing and finding out what we had predicted first of all the oceans have been obviously we think of human health fisheries recreation source of energy etc with the specter of course of climate change but to address the microorganisms the time of this report 1998-99 microbiology micro button in terms of genomics was just beginning to explode and so understanding microorganisms in the ocean really was more predictive and it has certainly proven to be very prescient this report the focus of the report in terms of the microbiology was on the bacteria the viruses bungee the protist the the algae etc but what i think was critical in bringing together a systems approach is that we've been talking all day about a changing ocean certification co2 etc what we did know 25 years ago was that the common microorganism easy to culture was fibrio species but we as a general community don't understand because we're not microbiome most of us most of you are not microbiologists is that the causative agent of a major major pandemic which we have been under for the last two or three decades along with covid is the cholera epidemic and vibrio cholera is a marine bacterium it requires sodium for structure to function but it's also part of a large number of species of vibrios that carry out carbon and nitrogen cycling and so they're important they can't be eradicated but what happens is when you alter the ocean then they become abundant and then create a human health problem so if i could have the next slide more than 50 percent of the global human population lives within 50 miles of the coasts so we as humans are directly affected by the quality of the oceans and the coastal in the coastal regions now the intersection of climate change and ocean microbiology uh we were just beginning to understand the drivers the environmental drivers for example of of the cholera epidemic temperature um um salinity all these factors that are really ocean driven drive this the pandemic of cholera but in the last 20 years we also have been having the problems of other species of vibrios turning out to be pathogens a vibrio parahemolyticus fancy name for a bacterium that's associated with seafood and is the number one cause of food poisoning or gastroenteritis in japan and as i'll show in a moment has now become a major problem in the united states there's another bacterium vibrio vulnificus which isn't a pandemic but if you get infected with it fatality rate is 50 so it's a killer and it's now a current problem in florida so let me take the next slide first describe very briefly here then is how international oceanography has come up with some very interesting results about seven years ago maybe 10 years ago a group in italy in genoa uh dr color pruso and her team the mox plant team uh working in dna work and the plimoth and the south hampton marine laboratories and our team in maryland joined up and we took advantage of the fact that the marine labs had been doing what they we call citizen science they had been collecting plankton samples for 40 years so they were in the plimoth and the south hampton laboratories and plankton samples which together as a team we extracted the dna and from the specific areas in the north sea and off the coast of the northern us next slide we were able to show that over that 40 year period with that very gradual increase in sea surface temperature there was a concomitant increase in the numbers of these vibrio species they have the next slide and we matched it up with the increasing number of infections reported for these vibrio infections seafood poisoning uh volnificus illuses deaths and occasionally even in the countries of western europe occasionally some cholera outbreaks we have the next slide now what we are finding today is that when we look at the data going all the way back to 1988 to the present we find that there is an increasing number of infections with vibrio volnificus with occasional deaths in the chesapeake bay and next slide especially in florida right after the hurricane in a whole series of these infections began to appear we have the next slide and so we now see on the left the trend for vibriosis that means any kind of vibrio infection and remember this these are marine bacteria these are exposures to individuals either fishermen recreational individuals those who are sailing whatever and then on the right the number of cases the vibrio volnificus and this has been going up to the point where currently there is a crisis in some parts of florida with the vibrio volnificus infections so what we are now living with is the actual fact that the coupling of climate change and the effect on a residual autochthonous native native living marine bacteria is now causing a direct human public health effect so i think the report which by the way was delightfully now i understand why it's in a book it's really neat it's a nice little book and and it's quite prussian in terms of the predictions or the recommendations of what needs to be done so as a result i think of this intersection of climate change ocean microbiology and human health i think we see that in the next decade or two there are going to be some pretty dramatic effects with respect to human health so there's a sense of urgency here but at the same time and i'd also like to point out that the report recommended that a systems approach be taken and and from what was just said by dr pompone that we can look to new kinds of approaches to study the oceans and in fact one of them is in satellite sensing because now coupling satellite sensing with computational modeling we can actually predict the risk of pandemics such as cholera and other vector-borne disease driven pandemics and so in a sense this very early work on satellite sensing computational modeling has really contributed a new public health tool so this report i think is one that um says a lot predicts a lot in the predictions i think have been proven proven out so with that i would just like to say that this i think is a demonstration of where a national academy report can make a very huge difference and can provide guidance for where the directions of research should go um i was not a participant in the report because uh 1998 i was appointed director of nsf it would have been highly inappropriate for me to be serving on a re on an academy committee and funding at the same time and i do vaguely remember that one of the reasons that nsf funding was not given to the report was because i was director and it would have looked as though i was funding my own research interest so that's my story i've also given you some extra time well thank you so much you know both to shirley and to um and to rita for giving us that overview of that report i was gonna this is as much a question i think for our audience as a statement but i know that after the report came out there was those new programs um that were authorized by congress one at noah and and then the nsf nihs program and my i guess my impression had been that the report had influenced the development of those programs do you have any insight on that yes yes uh in fact there is a report um ecology of emerging infectious diseases that elis zuhuni and i put together to get nih and nsf to work together because nih would never fund fundamental ocean ecology and nsf wasn't going to be funding any medical research because nih's budget was like 10 times bigger so by having that joint report which now continues to this day and is very effective that came out of this report at the same time a partnership between nsf and nih that that emerged that continues to fund the kind of research i've just been describing yeah there it just had a quick question does the academy track legislation that comes directly from reports that would be a very powerful um i would say not not very well so um i think you know if certainly if i see something it's um you know i will track it for sure and uh and there have been i think some really remarkable examples that we haven't talked about today and that was from several of the fishery studies um in particular where i can think of one um it was the first report that we did on the recreational fisheries survey system and and the next three authorization of the magnus and act it actually told now to implement the recommendations in that report so it doesn't get more direct than that i think in terms of an you know sort of an influential program but yeah i think it is it's a challenge for us you know for sure we do hear about any requests for studies but i think it's just as important for us to know when our studies are having impact in congress yeah oh one thing i will say i do look to you know this whole community to let me know about impacts as well because you know i you're part of the my ears on the ground to hear about you know something you know if you know that the reports had an influence to let us know and then and then we can you know that improves our tracking coastal coastal ocean mapping one had nine of the 11 recommendations were turned into authorizations into law so yeah i did you know so there are a lot of reports that didn't make it on this list and this was not a scientific exercise by any stretch of the imagination um so there are you know certainly you know quite a few reports that i would say would get honorable mention and that would be one of them i think the coastal mapping report was one um the other one actually um was one that morgan did is morgan still here uh there she is yeah on a marine biodiversity and and jessie ossobells sent me a note and said how important that report was to the development of the census of marine life so that was i mean that's a huge impact you know i think for for our community so there you know i could go on with other examples there was one tiny little report actually and it's all because of dan walker we had a small study that was funded by epa to look at mitigating erosion on and sheltered coast that's what it was and uh we had i mean it had a tiny little budget and so dan came to me one day and he said you know i'm too expensive we don't have enough money for this so you're gonna have to do it that was that was you know it was like my second year maybe a share a year i'd been a chair for year and a half i'm like oh my gosh you know but and i knew nothing about that issue at all but i learned so much about you know the the whole issue of eroding you know coastlines and sort of the influence of sea level rise and the incredible impact that we'd have on communities and i've briefed that report more times than any other study i ever did for the academies it's really kind of amazing and one of the impacts of that report is in the it's in the federal register because one of the things that the report said was that we aren't very good at doing cumulative impacts and um there's some unintended consequences to the way we permit um you know shoreline uh hardening so basically you can get there is a national permit for shoreline hardening you know so that you know building a seawall for example or a revetment but there was nothing for a living shoreline so for anybody who is interested in putting in a living shoreline they had to go through so many more hoops to try to get that get a permit to do that because there was no nationwide permit and and so one of the things that happened was when that after the report came out was that the core put in for a nationwide permit for living shorelines to make it easier for people to do it and they referenced that report so you know that's another example where you wouldn't see it in our in you know we've provided a lot of the metrics for the reports that we got from national academy press which is you know how many people download it and that type of thing and how many citations but you would never see an impact like this um federal register notice that made it you know sort of possible for homeowners now to put in living shorelines rita you recommend that um there'll be an update of this uh not not an update but there will be the next stage of this report because for example i think what would be incredibly useful would be a study on the ocean microbiome it seems to me that the way genomics it's been mentioned i think today others have mentioned the fact that ocean genomics micro organisms of the ocean are beginning to be understood i think uh john you pointed out in oil degradation is a major driver by microorganisms so it seems to me a stage two or or a next generation report would be an awfully powerful document for the ocean studies board i'll sign me up rita yeah the other thing i have to confess is i started my career as a marine microbiologist so it was just so much fun to get to work on that so rita was one of my early early heroes um so i would like to make you know if anybody else would like to sort of mention a report or you know an activity i'm not going to mention a report so much but listening to this just occurs to me how first of all i'm remembering how many of these reports for some reason over my life i was interested in and looking forward to or knew where the origins were knew somebody participated in so it really is nice to remember and and also maybe track how impact might be amplified if we did a better job about thinking about this as an ongoing basis but uh it does seem to me it might be worth some discussion of the oceans for itself nothing but more work but to really look at those ones that did have impact and maybe the metrics for impact might be the conditions under which they have impact might be something that actually starts to reveal itself when you look at it the shelter shorelines i know where that came out of there was a very specific need and there was that we knew there was an audience for that report to some extent certainly the cdr seems to be the i'm going to guess that the community knew that this was an issue that was coming up of great significance so let's get this out on the street in some regard and it was interesting that that was a foundation funding one because they often are more sensitive to the political environment sometimes in the federal agencies are i mean they're the outside broader political environment so it might be interesting to think at some point about this impact question a little bit and have a little bit of a thought of under what the conditions under which are that have these impact impacts that might be more than the traditional nas measures of impact so just a thought because just very exciting to hear all these remember all of these things and i'm sure you all have many more examples that i was not participating in so it's cool thanks yeah anyone that's and i know we do have people you know in online and so certainly if you give an opportunity to people who are listening in remotely as well if you can raise your hand i think okay i guess we saturated for the day yeah so they're coming at 410 yeah so i do so i can give you guys a break but we do have a really i think exciting event for it to well actually two exciting events to end the day for this particular session it's the new art installation blue dreams which is part of the ocean memory project and that came out of another academy's activity the deep blue sea workshop and they have an installation at the academies now so you can go and see it it's not very far away it's on the second floor if you go out to where the where the entrance to the auditorium is you'll see some stairs and you just go up the stairs and the installation is right there you can't miss and i did notice as you walk out that way there is another installation on the wall of some of the artwork of our next guest who's rebecca ritzstein and so they're going to come and talk about the installation and after that we're going to have a small reception and so i'm going to you know invite everyone to you know walk around have some food if you're in this room we're going to show the old photos so you can see that photo oh and and yes thank you thank you and we want a photo for today too so let's see if we can get everyone together do you i don't know how you want to do this claudia yes we're having a photo and i think it would be lovely after um we we talk about the art before we kind of go into the reception and prep for the rebelle lecture if if we could all very briefly gather for a photo i mean this is truly a momentous event that we're having here i think you know it's so exciting to sit here and think about all the studies and the outcomes and the tremendous impacts that they have in our field everything from argo to satellites you know to to data and and to really think about how just yesterday we're still talking about data and accessibility and you know equity and justice and how all of these aspects that we are still working on can can be communicated more broadly across our field and beyond so yes i would very much like a photo and so if we could plan on doing that right at 430 kind of at the official end of uh of our day of activities that that would be great so in the meantime we will see everyone back here 10 minutes you know to refresh in here the the photo well this is what i was going to ask sue because i'm not as familiar with where the best photo taking place will be but i will be sure to inform you in just a few moments yes so you know so we'll have to have we'll have to have john provide the poems okay everyone um if you can take your seats again and those of you who are online if you can you know come back to your computer and put in your earbuds again um we're so pleased um today to have um the artist who is behind this amazing installation that we have the opportunity to see today for the ocean memory project called blue dreams and that's rebecca roodstein is that you pronounce it correctly or close enough okay cool and then um tom scallock is okay um co-creator of blue dreams and the senior advisor um to the founders of the joan clarith sigh foundation and then um the academies on jd tallisick who's the director of cultural programs and so um jd does so much of the work of um of organizing these exhibits that we ge