; January 18, 1985
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Honorable Lee M. Thomas
Acting Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
H4 D.C. 20460 THE; ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. Thomas:
The Research Outlook Review Subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board met in Washington, B.C., on November 28, 1984, to
review the Agency's current five-year research and development
plan, formerly known as the "Research Outlook" but now entitled
the "Long-range Research Agenda." This letter report summarizes
the Subcommittee's conclusions of the process by which the
document was prepared.
The purpose of the Congressional requirement that the
Office of Research and Development prepare an annual "Research
Outlook" was to institute a strategic research planning process
in the Agency* The Subcommittee strongly endorses the development
of a long-term research strategy; however, Science Advisory Board
experience with the review of this document over eight years
has demonstrated that the process and the resulting document
has not met this goal. This year's document is no exception.
The Office of Research and Development aade an effort to
Include the Assistant Administrators of the various program
offices into the development of the current "Long-range Research
Agenda." Together with the chairmen and .staffs of the research
committees, they identified environmental issues and the research
necessary to resolve those issues. This approach* although an
improvement over previous years' efforts, once again resulted
in a document that only estimates research needs over the short-
term! actually, it only reflects research already in place. The
document is essentially bankrupt of new ideas, innovation, and
a forward look.
The Subcommittee believes that the failure of the "Research
Outlook" to achieve a goal of coherent and continuous long-term
research planning results in part from an annual discontinuity
in the process. This process is responsive mainly to budgetary
limitations and the exigencies of iPA's short-term mission
requirements which inherently leads to a document that is
produced as its own end and not as a long^tera research plan.
-------
- 2 -
We therefore recommend that the Congress withdraw its
charge and that the development of a "Research Outlook" Of a
"Long-range Research Agenda" be discontinued on the basis that
such a document does not meet the Agency's need for a research
plan* In one important respect, its preparation is even counter-
productive. ; to .-mo KŁ forward-looking strategic research planning
because .it . .drains needed, 'resources away fron the latter objective*
Research planning should be Initiated and carried out by
the Office of Research and Development. It must follow a
rational and .coherent design. A research strategy has to be
articulated so that it can serve as a basis for the development
of an .annually .updated ; research .agenda. Such a strategy must
Include an assessment of emerging environmental issues and
alternative approaches to their resolution and must have the
innate flexibility to adjust direction as perceived problems
become non-problems either through solution or the correction of
misconceptions. The group responsible for developing and
implement ing a research strategy should be in a position to avail
itself of expertise such as that found in academic and other
research centers and the National Academy of Sciences by
commissioning white papers on the subject of research futures.
Such an approach.. .da-ii, yield the elements of a forward-looking
and implementable research plan.
The SubcoTnrai ttee has already transmitted individual comments
and editorial remarks to ORD staff. ' lit summary, we conscientiously
performed the scientific review, but at the same time we express
the hope that our recommendation for abolishing the document will
be heeded.
Sincerely .yours
Norton Nelson» Chairman
Executive Committee
Fohn M. Neuhold, Chairman
'Research Outlook Review
Subcommittee
• a—y--
------- |