This passage of the response encapsulates the logic of the original piece in Science, and is precisely the reason for our letter. There is no reason to think that the artificial separation referred to here is a significant obstacle to the “integrated model” that we have put forward. The obstacle is traditional model of science funding, which is driven largely by scientists, and not the communities science is supposed to help.

Yes, NOAA and USGS have had more success in building problem-driven research programs than have other agencies. But such programs remain small, isolated examples that persist despite a broader institutional culture focused on the “linear model” of science, which is generally driven the priorities of the scientific community. It is that broader institutional culture that will have to change if we want more of our research dollars to actually address the major looming problems that Schaefer et al. mention.

It is possible that the transition to ESSA would present an opportunity to push in this direction, but it will not happen automatically. It will require serious pushing. Without a concerted effort to change the model through which science is funded, and orient programs to be more problem driven, ESSA will just be more of the same.

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/11/attn_obama_earth_science_agenc_1.html

There are segments of NOAA that are not connected to the Earth sciences research mission that the authors of the Policy Forum outlined for this ESSA. The Fisheries Service is the one line agency within NOAA that is probably the most distinct from the Earth observation message, and I don’t know what the authors plan to do with it.

Organizationally the outlined structure is flawed in that it’s a merger of NOAA and USGS, but a collaborative bridge to NASA’s Earth sciences program. Why? If the authors think a reordering of priorities for NASA’s Earth observation program is necessary, why stop short of incorporating it into the new agency?

With the possible exception of stronger coordination of the associated research programs (ocean, atmosphere, terrestrial, freshwater, etc.), I think all of the coordination functions assigned to this new agency can be done by the OSTP and associated coordinating councils, mostly the National Science and Technology Council, an executive branch interagency group associated with OSTP in some administrations. The heavy lifting necessary to do what it would take in Congress to create a new agency does not seem worth what added benefit an ESSA might provide. I also think there’s little chance of this happening, unless Congressional champions have already been cultivated and are hiding out on this issue.

The problems with declining attention to Earth observation and Earth sciences appear much more budgetary than organizational, and the proposed structure of ESSA seems unlikely to address the issues with Earth observation at NASA. The failure of the last great science policy ’success’ – the America COMPETES Act – is on the budgetary side, and challenges to discretionary spending are one of many reasons an ESSA will remain an academic exercise.