Deployment of a CTD (Conductivity/Temperature/Depth) rosette from R/V New Horizon. Photo courtesy of Scripps Inst. of Oceanography Explorations, La Jolla, CA.

It is unfortunate, but true, that the most frequent message that Program Officers are required to transmit to investigators is that of a declination. The long-standing tradition in the Division of Ocean Sciences (OCE) is that this disappointing news is provided directly via a telephone call. OCE makes a particular effort to inform community members as soon as possible. This provides investigators the maximum lead-time to revise their proposals for resubmission should that be appropriate. The most important component of these `decline' phone calls is the guidance from the Program Officer to the principal investigator (PI) concerning the future of his or her proposal. Are major or minor modifications required in order for the proposal to be competitive? Are there particular components that are poorly justified and damage the credibility of the overall effort? Are the foundations of the proposal sufficiently weak that it is unlikely to compete successfully even with substantial revision? Is the proposal competent and the objectives achievable, but the topic likely to provide simply more detail of well-understood phenomena rather than achieve significant new insights into fundamental processes? These are examples of the types of questions about which a PI should expect to receive guidance from a Program Officer. The Division believes this information can be communicated most thoroughly via a direct question and answer discussion by telephone. OCE reaffirms to its community the commitment to discuss every decline decision with the PI by telephone, should the PI so wish. This does not mean, necessarily, that it is the most efficient use of everyone's time for the first notification of declination to be provided by telephone. In some cases, an email message may be most appropriate. It is commonly the case that a phone conversation can be substantially more specific and helpful after the PI has had an opportunity to read and digest the mail review and panel comments that are transmitted in writing as part of the `formal' decline package. Program Officers are best positioned to make the decision on this. It is important to realize that the Division has to decline approximately 900 proposals each year.

Fortunately, the trauma of the notification of a decline is not the only communication that is important between community PIs and Division management. Because decisions made within the Division have profound impact on the lives of community members, it is the responsibility of OCE to describe the process and reasoning that leads to a particular decision as clearly as possible. This responsibility extends beyond declinations of proposals to decisions concerning program directions, facility developments, budget initiatives, etc. There is no single mode of communication that can effectively achieve all this. OCE tries to keep the web page updated so investigators can readily gain access to current program descriptions and new program announcements. This newsletter is an attempt to keep the community informed of changes and trends. Most importantly, the Division frequently supports workshop activities, bringing together community members to discuss research results and new ideas for progress and innovation. The results of these deliberations greatly impact program decisions within the Division. OCE also supports community-based steering committees to help guide the directions of the major focused research programs. These groups of community leaders constitute an important conduit for two-way information flow between OCE and PIs, and these steering groups, in turn, often support web pages and newsletters that further inform researchers.

Almost all significant decisions within the Division are founded upon the results from community-based deliberations - workshops, panel meetings, steering committees, etc. So clearly the communication issue is a shared responsibility. Communication from the community to OCE is just as important as the reverse. The Division depends upon the community to work hard to effectively inform OCE about ideas, trends, and opportunities.

Meetings are an ideal place to meet with Program Officers to discuss current and future research plans.

Of course, there is no substitute for face-to-face conversations between Program Officers and community members, and this is one of the reasons why travel is such a large part of a Program Officer's life. OCE encourages you to take advantage of the presence of Division staff at professional meetings to meet with them in person and talk about your plans and your research. Frequently the Division of Ocean Sciences, or the Directorate for Geosciences, supports a general information booth at major meetings (e.g. AGU, ASLO, TOS, etc.). A visit to the booth can be used to determine if an appropriate Program Officer is in attendance. Also, Program Officers visit research centers for `Site Visits' to give talks about NSF and spend a day or so meeting with PIs and prospective PIs. As a Division, it is the goal of the Division to make 8-10 such visits each year.

One of the quotations that I use too frequently is attributed to the great satirical songwriter Tom Lehrer, who said, `If people can't communicate, the least they can do is Shut Up!' I believe there is no more eloquent way of saying that it is not the quantity of communication that counts - it is the quality. But, we do not want you to `Shut Up'—we want to hear from you. Please remember that it requires real effort by both parties to exchange information effectively. It is as difficult to communicate satisfactorily an unwelcome decision on funding, as it is to explain a complex research concept. We need your cooperation, understanding, and advice if we are to continue to improve the way we communicate with one another.

by Mike Purdy