Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(;01925 <br /> <br />. Politicians shouldn't try to push the science in a certain direction. It is OK that policy makers <br />reject the science - but we need to do the science on our own. <br /> <br />. GCMRC originally designed to be small group, program managers, not doers. Maybe it's <br />cheaper to do it in house. It's a matter of what you bring forth to AMWG to demonstrate you are <br />producing the best, most efficient operation. Part is what we are asking GCMRC to do - maybe <br />it's too much. Gets back to issue that AMWG needs to deal with: are we willing to pay for the <br />workplan. <br /> <br />. Re: small staff: Mark Schafer said "appropriate staff," not "small staff." Focus should be on <br />product, not process. If we get clear direction from AMWG, and we deliver the products you <br />need, process become irrelevant. Until you get those products, these are empty words. <br /> <br />. Separation of science: once cost is assigned, question of scientist giving some indication of <br />trade-off - that's the purview of science. Can give the costs of the decision or long-term strategy. <br />So strategic plan and annual plan are critical. AMWG needs to look at long-term strategy and <br />prices that go with that. ' <br /> <br />. With priority setting, and providing budget, comes accountability. I haven't seen yet good report <br />on what the accomplishments are - what did we get for that dollar spent. <br /> <br />. Scientists' results have worked. <br /> <br />. No more tentative results - trustworthy results, some peer review before being presented to <br />TWG. Trade off is timeliness. <br /> <br />. Others frustrated with only final reports. <br /> <br />. Activate science advisors to do review. <br /> <br />. Policy is to share preliminary results with TWG, but not to AMWG. This broke down January <br />2002 when we had a sediment presentation, peer-reviewed and published, followed very <br />preliminary report on HBC, not peer reviewed. <br /> <br />. If preliminary results have to be clearly identified as such, and AMWG members need to <br />understand the difference between preliminary and peer-reviewed. <br /> <br />. Preliminary results are shared only at the TWG level. Peer-reviewed results only are shared at <br />the AMWG level. Peer review can be the Science Advisors' review. <br /> <br />. If AMWG members are given preliminary data, they should not act on it, unless it was an <br />emergency. <br /> <br />. When ad hoc committees are established at a techoicallevel, AMWG members should refrain <br />from participating. <br /> <br />. Not realistic to keep information from AMWG. Can't make major decisions based on preliminary <br />info, and TWG plays a role in guiding us here. Can't set up a formalized system. <br /> <br />. TWG members briefing AMWG members is the ideal way to go. Mixed models from AMWG. <br />Recent motion mandates preliminary results. Seems AMWG wants to evaluate preliminary data. <br /> <br />. I'm not sure it's broken. Have to be careful not to make bad decisions based on preliminary <br />information. <br /> <br />. Information is dangerous. It also can be shared, or maybe it won't be shared. We will revisit this <br />policy at GCMRC. We ought to be transparent at GCMRCj we need to make it clear when <br />information is preliminary if it is. Can't wait until final peer-reviewed results. All scientific data is <br />preliminary - designed to be repeatable, can get different results. Our job as scientists is to put <br />up the caveats. <br /> <br />. Overlap and duplication between AMWG and TWG - things like presentation of information. Is <br />TWG info getting carried up the ladder - or do we make presentations to AMWG, too? What are <br />