Any legislative or public review of the use of UAVs should include a complete understanding that these aerial systems also have many domestic uses that are practical and benign, and should be embraced for their potential to save money and lives.

There’s not much that UAVs can do that a pilot in a small plane cannot do, but they can do it more safely and at much lower cost. UAVs can monitor and help manage wildfires, or support a search and rescue mission. They can help forest product industries plant trees. They can monitor wildlife, improve irrigation, detect crop disease outbreaks and gauge environmental health.

UAVs are an emerging national industry that Oregon can help lead.

Under a mandate from Congress, the Federal Aviation Administration will establish several test sites for UAVs by 2015. Our state offers a unique combination of research excellence, varied terrain, relevant industry and local applications in agriculture and forestry.

Oregon State University has formed the OSU Unmanned Vehicle System Research Consortium with industry, government and others to bring a national UAV test center to the state and develop the use of these aerial systems, a potential multi-billion dollar job growth engine that will also provide significant benefit to society.

Decades of experience in remote sensing drew Oregon State University to this venture. OSU oceanographers use NASA satellites to monitor global phytoplankton productivity and identify harmful algal blooms. We use optical remote sensing to detect earthquake faults, assess wildfire impacts on forests and measure tsunami inundation patterns. We have instruments on the International Space Station to study shoals and ocean shores.

Unmanned autonomous vehicles are an important growth industry in the United States. Like GPS, the Internet, microprocessors and many other technologies, they started with military applications, but now are staples of everyday life.

We recognize that the transition toward considering the civilian use of UAVs has raised privacy concerns. Protection from prying cameras where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is a legitimate concern, legally protected by current law and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Yet every new technology has historically raised some kind of social concern. And, in response, society has figured out reasonable solutions. We urge that these same solutions be pursued in parallel with the needed technical research of UAVs.

Regardless of what we do in Oregon, UAV technology will be developed in the United States and around the world. But because of Oregon’s comprehensive scientific and industry experience, and our state’s ideal geography, we can choose to be a leader in this exciting venture.

This article originally appeared in the March 9 2013 Statesman Journal, here:  http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013303100021&nclick_check=1

A lot has changed over the last several decades in how we do research.  I wonder if we’re better off.  I’d like to suggest that some of these changes need to be undone.

Consider the following significant changes from “the norm” of the past and how they should be corrected:

• GET RID OF BROADER IMPACTS:   About 15 years ago, the National Science Foundation (NSF) instituted the formal requirement for demonstrating “broader impacts” in our research proposals (that is to say, in addition to the technical or intellectual merit of the work being offered).  In my humble opinion, this was a most insidious change.  After all, NSF is that last bastion of fundamental research, established for the benefit of improving understanding.  All of the other agencies are mission agencies, whose research clearly needs to benefit their mission.  At NSF, however, the broader impacts requirement was introduced because a vocal minority felt they were not getting enough immediate return from their tax investments in science.  It’s absurd and should be repealed.

  

  (Here’s an interesting quick game anyone can play: do a Google search on “top researchers of the last hundred years”, then try to determine how that list of individuals might have fared under the test of “broader impacts” … should Heisenberg or Pauli have been judged by their assessment of the utility of their research?)

Somebody needs to explain Pasteur’s quadrant to our elected policy makers.

• UNLEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD: Early in my research management career I was asked to provide a history of the US Navy’s establishment of what was called the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS).  Those of you who are Tom Clancy aficionados will recognize this acronym as the true-to-life basis for our maritime superiority in the Cold War; SOSUS was our acoustic network that served as the most effective component of our anti-submarine warfare toolbox, detecting Soviet submarines throughout the Atlantic and Pacific.  Anyway, the short version of the story is that in the early 1950s a gaggle of Navy Admirals went up to Cambridge, Massachusetts, with a problem and a blank check.  They invested in the best engineers and marine scientists to design, build and deploy the SOSUS array within about two years.  They sole-sourced the contract, conducted no competition, and used a closed peer-review process.  They did not invoke a Gantt chart of Technology Readiness Levels.  In short, by today’s Federal Acquisition Regulations, they broke a lot of rules.  The outcome, however, was clearly successful.  Today, we are encumbered by so many accountability-based requirements, just to get to “go” on a research program that the odds are stacked against any proposal to the tune of 5:1 for rejection.  Most of this dilemma is a consequence of ensuring that every researcher has the same opportunity to compete and that no unfair advantages are put in place.  The same concept underlies the current trend toward prohibiting cost-sharing by institutions on research proposals.  That idea is intended to ensure that the research faculty at a less well-off institution can compete fairly with another Principal Investigator at, say Cal Tech or Johns Hopkins.  Okay, I get that, but maybe the better solution is to encourage research institutions to actually make investments in the research, and not rely exclusively on the federal coffers.   That means playing on an uneven field, but it also means we’ll start strengthening the major research institutions and (gasp!) eliminating some of the smaller or less performing institutions.  With federal funding getting tighter we need to rethink how we spread the wealth.  The old saying that a rising tide floats all boats has an inverse: a sinking tide grounds the unmoving.

• COMMINGLE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RESEARCH DOLLARS:  Fortunately I can’t get thrown in jail for advocating this, but I can be locked up for doing it!  Now, I’m stretching my point here, since this was never really done the way I’m proposing, but if you go back a century or so, you’ll see that a lot of the research that was done was supported by private benefactors.  In fact the major researchers of the 19th Century were mostly wealthy entrepreneurs who were almost exclusively self-supported.  What I’m suggesting here is that we researchers in the U.S. are competing against peers overseas who enjoy much more latitude in combining private (e.g. industry) funding with the resources of their taxpayers (just take a look at Finnish telecommunications research as one good example).  We bend over backwards to ensure that the dollar from a corporate sponsor never sees the dollar from a federal agency, even though both dollars may be spent in the same lab by the same PI.  Again, the basis for this makes sense: it ensures transparency as needed on how our tax dollars are used, and it avoids mischief in areas such as conflict of interest.  But let’s assume for a moment that the vast majority of our researchers are smart, educable, and ethical, and that we build a system of oversight and accountability within the research institution.  If those assumptions are viable then we ought to be able to combine investments from all sources in a way that gets more bang for the buck, eliminates unnecessary duplication of proposals, while still protecting intellectual property effectively.   My guess is that industry would be a lot more eager to come on campus and pay for research.  And, after all, with federal budgets trending as they have recently, we are going to want that industry investment on campus!

Okay, I’m finished.  Now I’ll start cleaning up some of this shattered china!

The Faculty Innovator Award celebrates impact through engagement in commercialization partnerships, recognizing a faculty member whose extraordinarily high impact innovations from research are translated into transformative results that help promote economic development and social progress.

This year it was awarded posthumously to Richard Peterson, who passed away in February.

Dr. Peterson was arominent national expert in heat transfer, thermodynamics and combustion, and a leading researcher in miniature and microscale energy systems. He was a professor of mechanical engineering.

“Rich was a prolific inventor whose research will have a profound impact on lives well into the future. He submitted 34 invention disclosures in the past 15 years. Rich really believed in the potential impact his discoveries could have on millions of lives.”

Brian Wall
Director of the Office for Commercialization and Corporate Development

A resolution by the Board of Directors of the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) noted Dr. Peterson’s leadership as one of the core founders and as co-director of the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute, and President, CTO, and co-founder of ONAMI Gap Company Applied Exergy. His  many creative contributions to development of technology, included advances in grid energy storage.

Please view an on-line presentation with more details about Dr. Peterson’s career and about the criteria for the annual award.

“Rich was fiercely independent but passionate about his research making a positive impact.  He also cared deeply about teaching and leaves behind a legacy of engineers who will continue making impact. He will be sorely missed.”

Brian Paul
Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
Director of the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute

• Effective July 1, 2012, all proposals will be routed through Cayuse SP.
  Faculty should no longer be submitting paper-based proposals or the OSU Proposal Transmittal Form.  Multiple training sessions have already been offered on the Cayuse products, and staff from the Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) will continue to offer training sessions at least monthly.  An additional session for June has been scheduled for June 22, 2012, in MU 213, from 10:00am – 11:30am.   Faculty and staff can send an e-mail to sponsored.programs@oregonstate.edu to reserve a seat in this session.
• Also effective July 1, 2012 , OSP’s web drop capability for Grants.gov packages will be disabled.
  These proposals (with the exception of the submissions for OSU’s Statewide Public Service funds) should be prepared through Cayuse 424 and routed through Cayuse SP.
• Effective July 30, 2012, proposal routing in Cayuse 424 will be disabled, and all proposals will be routed using Cayuse SP.
  Any faculty that have begun proposal preparation in Cayuse 424 can contact an OSP staff member for assistance with proposal routing. 

  The Office of Sponsored Programs team of Aedra Reynolds, Dawn Wagner and Vickie Watkins support the College of Agricultural Sciences, the College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences, the College of Forestry, and the units housed at the Hatfield Marine Science Center.
  The team of Eric Anundson, Cindy Rasberry and Lin Reilly support all other units.

This reminder has also been sent to Deans, Associate Deans, and unit heads.
Please contact Pat Hawk, Director of Sponsored Programs (541-737-6699 or patricia.hawk@oregonstate.edu ), if you have any questions.

Pat

Patricia A. Hawk, Director
Office of Sponsored Programs

• Department of Defense - Stu Wolf (Assistant Director (Physics) in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering)

DOD 6.1 (basic research) funding is holding its own, and has enjoyed good support from Secretary Gates as well as the House and Senate.  There is some question, of course, on how much research Secretary Panetta will support, but clearly his history in the White House, Congress and the CIA suggest he will want to maintain strong research budgets in DoD.

Dr. Wolf shared that the Defense Sciences Board is preparing a strategic plan on Defense Basic Sciences.  This is something we should watch for, and be prepared to respond.  He also emphasized that we focus on several information sources and opportunities:

*

• Annual solicitations for Multidisciplinary University Research Initiatives (MURI)

•  Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP) – incidentally, OSU has just submitted three proposals to DURIP

•  Industry briefings from DARPA – check the DARPA website

• US Geological Survey

Marcia McNutt (Director) – Marcia was the Director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, so it was nice to have a chance to talk briefly about some of the key issues in the oceanographic community (e.g. ship construction and operations).

We spent a long time talking about the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and the prognosis for sustained capabilities past the Landsat 8 launch scheduled for late 2012.  USGS is facing difficulties finding the resources (from somewhere other than out of hide), but apparently has good support from Congress to do this without penalty to the agency.  They are looking at a range of options, and may want some help from the academic community in assessing capabilities. Stay tuned.

Doug Beard, Chief of the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) and Robin O’Malley, USGS NCCWSC Partnership and Policy Coordinator

I had a chance to catch up with Beard and O’Malley in their offices in Northern Virginia.  The last time we talked at any length was in the summer of 2010, when Phil Mote had organized their visit to Corvallis, while we were competing for the USGS Climate Science Center leadership (which Phil and Co. won!).  Getting USGS personnel on campus as part of the Center is a high priority for Doug Beard, and he indicated we can expect to hear an announcement of who will be the USGS Center lead “very soon” (before 1 Jan).  That will set in motion further activity to bring into the center at least two more USGS employees.

We also had a good discussion regarding coordination of various agency climate activities.  Doug and Robin made clear that their USGS priority for climate science is attending to immediate regional issues (rather than completing assessments, for example).

• National Science Foundation –   Farnam Jahanian, Assistant Director for Computer & Information Science & Engineering Directorate

Dr. Jahanian shared his view that everything that CISE supports (and consequently their position in coordinating with the NSF “domain” sciences) should advance the frontiers in computer sciences and communications.  He emphasized a focus on exploiting advances in technologies in areas such as data access, broadband, and sensor development.  He added that, as with all of the Directorates at NSF, they are aiming at issues of sustainability, lifelong learning, health and security.  He indicated that while 70% of the CISE funding will go to core computer science and information science research, the remainder will be cross-cutting.  He cited as examples of the cross-cutting effort initiatives and programs: SEES, focusing on sustainability and energy security; and Smart Health and Well-Being, focusing on chronic health issues and aging populations. Going beyond NSF, Jahanian also discussed the emerging collaborations with NASA, NIST and NIH in the National Robotics Initiative.

• U.S.  Department of Agriculture – Rich Guldin,  Director of Quantitative Science Research and Development, U.S. Forest Service

We were scheduled to meet with the head of R&D for the Forest Service, Jim Reaves, but he was called away at the last minute; Guldin is one of Reaves’ Deputies, working mostly on USFS remote sensing issues. So I used this opportunity to hear more about the USFS needs for Landsat data continuity (see above, for discussion with Marcia McNutt).  Their concerns with any changes in satellite sensor technology is that they would lose the bands that are critical to their applications. In connection with that discussion, I asked Guldin what his toughest challenges are in remote sensing.  In short, he said he needs work in site- and ecosystem-specific algorithm development, as well as improved capabilities for polygon definition to support evaluating categories of environments of interest. We also had a good discussion of the potential utility of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for USFS applications.  He stated that UAS are potentially valuable for forest inventories, especially where there is 10% tree cover or less.  For any readers who want to pursue this UAS discussion further, Guldin’s staff point of contact is Ken Brewer.

Chavonda Jacobs-Young (Acting Director, National Institute of Food and Agriculture {NIFA})

When I last visited this office in the winter, I met with Dr. Roger Beachy, who was full of expectations about what he’d be able to do at NIFA.  Three months later, he left NIFA!

Chavonda stated that work needs to be done to get Office of Management & Budget to see NIFA as a “real player in the science arena.”  She pointed out that NIFA’s leadership in some important technical areas (e.g. bioenergy, food safety and nutrition, environmental prediction) is not recognized.  She sees several opportunities for the community to address these misperceptions: getting ag people on President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, National Research Council NRC panels, etc.  It’s clear that she feels a strategic imperative is needed for NIFA, so much of what they do will be implemented with that in mind. “CAP grants will be awarded strategically,” she said.  In closing, she asked, somewhat rhetorically “What is USDA’s ‘Man on the Moon’?”

• Environmental Protection Agency- Lek Kadeli (Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development {OED}), Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta (Acting Division Director, Environmental Public Health Division), Rick Linthurst (National Program Director for Ecology), Thomas D. Fontaine (Director, Western Ecology Division), Tony Olsen (Western Ecology Division) Seema Schappelle  (Special Assistant/Immediate Office of the Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development)

When my meeting with ORD Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas was cancelled last-minute, we had the wonderful opportunity to do a video telecon with Anastas’ deputy, Lek Kadeli and his staff from Research Triangle Park (RTP) and Corvallis. It turned into a great discussion on a range of issues. Tom and Tony talked about the vibrant relationship with OSU faculty (e.g. Robert Tanguay, Phil Mote, John Bolte and Jeff McDonnell), and expressed interest in pursuing other relationships, including perhaps renewing some of the old relationships with our Environmental and Molecular Toxicology folks.

I asked about what programs we should watch for and got some good intel.  Lek recommended we watch for an RFA on molecular design, aimed at risk mitigation (based on recommendations from an NRC report on sustainability, chaired by Bernie Goldstein, released last week).  Jennifer indicated they’d be redesigning a number of their programs around sustainability and that the EPA Science Advisory Board web site is a good reference for us to infer the direction they’re getting.  Tom talked about their emphasis on Pacific NW water features.

Since I haven’t yet visited our Corvallis EPA neighbors, I wangled an invitation from Tom and Tony to come by for a tour soon.

• Department of  Energy (DOE), Jose Zayas, Program Manager for the Wind and Water Program

This was a great opportunity to meet the new program director in charge of our wave energy program, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, run by Belinda Batten.  Jose’s been on the job just a few weeks, coming from Sandia National Lab.  He’s clearly a strong advocate for the program, and we had a good discussion about how we can help him sell the marine hydrokinetics program, and what he expects of us. He made two good points:

1. We should become known well and uniquely for certain broad competencies (he used the example of U Maine’s recognized expertise in deepwater wind energy research).  He pointed out that this will require an even stronger within-campus coordination of what’s going on in engineering, oceanography and Sea Grant.
2. Working together with the national labs is critical.  NREL, PNNL, Sandia, etc. must be seen as meaningful partners in our work.

I returned to campus encouraged and inspired.

- Rick Spinrad, Vice President for Research

*
“5 x 5″ – Radio terminology used to signify that the signal has excellent strength and perfect clarity – therefore, that something is fine.

The issues we discussed at the meeting were fascinating, and relevant to all researchers, such as: prevention of muzzling of research, ensuring scientific results are used appropriately in development of policy, and fostering engagement by researchers with the media.  We discussed how important these issues are in terms of sustaining a leadership role for the U.S. in science, technology, engineering and math.

We also had an engrossing discussion about the implications of social media on issues of scientific integrity.  How do we consider the treatment of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube in the context of transmittal of scientific information?  How do we ensure that high quality, accurate research results are fairly represented in such media, and that specious and inaccurate information is flagged as such?  What lessons might we learn from Wikipedia and other such programs?

The issues associated with scientific integrity are manifold, and can become complicated quickly.  I wonder whether there is interest in having a similar dialogue here, at OSU, among our research community.  Let me know your thoughts.

Rick Spinrad
Vice President for Research

Read more Blog by Jane Lubchenco of NOAA ;    OSU Media Release

Round Table participants (alphabetical): brief bios – please see more about the distinguished careers, accomplishments, and contributions on websites of the organizations represented.

Dr. Robert D. Ballard, University of Rhode Island, Director for the Center for Ocean Exploration at URI’s Graduate School of Oceanography, member of the President’s Commission on Ocean Policy.

Dr. Ralph Cicerone, National Academies of Science, President, and Chair of the National Research Council.

Dr. John Holdren, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Dr. Peter J. Lamb, University of Oklahoma, Professor in School of Meteorology and Director of Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies, was founding Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate,  currently Editor of Meteorological Monographs.

Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA,  Administrator, and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere.

Dr. Sandy MacDonald, NOAA, directs  Earth System Research Laboratory and serves as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes.

Dr. Jonathon R. Pennock, University of New Hampshire, director of both new Hampshire Sea Grant and the Marine Program at UNH.

Dr. Larry Robinson, NOAA, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Conservation and Management, and Deputy Administrator.

Ms. Lois Schiffer, NOAA, General Counsel.

Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Oregon State University, Vice President for Research at OSU, previously Assistant Administrator for research for NOAA, and Research Director with the U.S. Office of Naval Research.

Dr. Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Senior Scientist, science advisor to five U.S. presidents.

Mr. Andy Winer, NOAA, Director of Strategic Initiatives & Partners and the Acting Director of External Affairs.

Mr. Robert Winokur,  Deputy and Technical Director, Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy, Chief of Naval Operations.

Dr. Terry Yosie, World Environment Center, President and CEO.

__
Please subscribe to The Spin on Research for notification of new entries, and to join the discussion.

Vannevar Bush, the force behind the creation of the National Science Foundation

Roger Revel, one of the first scientists to study global warming and the movement of tectonic plates

Rachel Carson,  marine biologist and conservationist whose writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement

Senator Fritz Hollings, father of important environmental legislation

Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockhead Martin, and author of the seminal report Rising Above the Gathering Storm

Carl Sagan, astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator, advocated skeptical inquiry and the scientific method. He pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI)

Jacques-Yves Cousteau, explorer, ecologist, filmmaker, innovator, scientist, photographer, author and researcher who pioneered marine conservation

If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to this blog to enter the conversation and to receive notices of updates.

Easy as Pie

From Sponsored Programs’ perspective, it was very nice to be able to watch the first proposals work through the routing.  Yet I was even more impressed with how quickly the proposals were assembled in Cayuse. I am sure faculty will love two features:  the error-checking, and the ability to “transform” a proposal into a new submission.  One of my  frustrations with Grants.gov forms is having to start each proposal from scratch.  Cayuse not only auto-populates common information such as name, address, e-mail, but it also allows you to leverage a submitted proposal for a new submission to another agency or a re-submission to the same agency.

Goodbye Back-Up Blues

Another important aspect of Cayuse:  backing-up work.  The system has three separate mechanisms: nightly to a dedicated network, every 30 minutes at the hosting facility in the Portland, Oregon area, and every 30 minutes at the dedicated replication servers in North Carolina.   The company also provides us unlimited storage for all activity, and their hosted facility has a dedicated power fee, and  engineering to avoid single points of failure in connectivity, power, fire or air conditioning.  When Cayuse performs updates/upgrades or maintenance, they provide advance notice, and they do them over a weekend at off-peak hours.

Onward

We now start Phase II of this project, which will provide more functionality for proposal development and submission, as well as introduction of the complementary modules for both the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) systems.

In our first steps to roll out Cayuse to the OSU research community, volunteering units will be part of the beta group to use it:  the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, and the Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Agricultural Science.  Sponsored Programs staff will set up training for faculty and staff .

Please note:  Sponsored Programs staff has been re-organized into two teams designed to align with divisions and Business Centers.  Link here to see with whom you’ll be working.

I thank Dr. Teri Lewis in the Psychology Department for working with us on the first submission.  She said she found the system “pretty smooth,” much easier to work with than Grants.gov forms.  I also  thank Dr. Matt Ito in Pharmacy  for working with us to submit an NIH R15 proposal, and Dr. Banks in the Cooperative Institute for Marine Resource Studies  for working with us to submit several NOAA continuation proposals.

I know I speak for Rick Spinrad and Rich Holdren when I say the Research Office is very excited to provide faculty and staff with this new and exciting tool for creating successful proposals!

I welcome your questions and comments.

Pat Hawk

Director, Office of Sponsored Programs

Consulting activities offer splendid opportunities for faculty members to  increase  your effectiveness and broaden your experience in relation to your functions at OSU, as well as to be of service to the community, private sector, nation,  and/or world. Yet the development of  appropriate relationships with industry is becoming more complex.

Companies are becoming especially aggressive on intellectual property ownership clauses within consulting agreements. Certain clauses, if not modified, have the potential to block your OSU research well into the future.   For protection,  you need to make sure the agreement does the following – at least

• Specifically excludes areas of current and potential future research at OSU
• Constrains the intellectual property ownership obligation to the consulting time period
• Limits the confidentiality period to a reasonable period (3-5 years)
• Defines the scope of work specific to the work performed

Also, for your protection, please make certain all of your work is documented. A good practice is to keep separate notebooks for your consulting and for your work at OSU.

I’ve reviewed  many consulting agreements for faculty, and am happy to do so for you.  I’ll help make sure you are not providing conflicting obligations, and that you retain research freedom well into the future.

See more information

Thanks

- Brian Wall, Director, Office for Commercialization and Corporate Development, OSU

comments to this blog are welcome

Moderas
testdrive.kc.kuali.org

(login:   quickstart )

Instruction Manual: 
www.moderas.org/sites/default/files/KC%20Driver’s%20Manual.pdf

Cayuse
demo12-env.cayuse424.com/
Password needed: For instruction manual and password,  contact Sponsored Programs 7-4933,  or sponsored.programs@oregonstate.edu .

We anticipate similar test sites from the remaining two vendors, and will post that information when available.

Your comments are welcome.