meeting ummary - center for science and...

ES53JULY 2003AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY |

M E E T I N G U M M A R Y

THE USWRP WORKSHOPON THE WEATHER RESEARCH

NEEDS OF THE PRIVATE SECTORBY ROGER A. PIELKE JR., JIM ABRAHAM, ELLIOT ABRAMS, JIM BLOCK, RICHARD CARBONE, DAVID CHANG,

KELVIN DROEGEMEIER, KERRY EMANUEL, ELBERT W. (JOE) FRIDAY JR., ROBERT GALL, JOHN GAYNOR,RODGER R. GETZ, TODD GLICKMAN, BRADLEY HOGGATT, WILLIAM H. HOOKE, EDWARD R. JOHNSON,EUGENIA KALNAY, JAMES (JEFF) KIMPEL, PAUL KOCIN, BYRON MARLER, REBECCA MORSS, RAVI NATHAN,STEVE NELSON, ROGER PIELKE SR., MARIA PIRONE, ERWIN PRATER, WARREN QUALLEY, KEVIN SIMMONS,

MICHAEL SMITH, JOHN THOMSON, AND GREG WILSON

Representatives from academic, government, and private sectors met with the hopes

of achieving a better understanding within the meteorological community and

improving the connection between research and societal needs.

PAFFILIATIONS: PIELKE JR., CARBONE, GALL, MORSS—NCAR, Boulder,Colorado; ABRAHAM, Meteorological Service of Canada, Dorval,Quebec, Canada; ABRAMS—AccuWeather, State College, Pennsylva-nia; BLOCK, DTN Weather Services, Burnsville, Minnesota; CHANG—Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Lexington,Massachusetts; DROEGEMEIER—University of Oklahoma, Norman,Oklahoma; EMANUEL—Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge, Massachusetts; FRIDAY—National Research Council,Washington, D.C.; GAYNOR—NOAA/OAR, Silver Spring, Maryland;GETZ—AWIS Weather Services, Inc., Auburn, Alabama; GLICKMAN—Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts;HOGGATT, NATHAN—Aquila Energy, Kansas City, Missouri; HOOKE—AMS, Washington, D.C.; JOHNSON—National Weather Service, SilverSpring, Maryland; KALNAY—University of Maryland at College Park,College Park, Maryland; KIMPEL—NOAA/NSSL, Norman, Oklahoma;KOCIN—The Weather Channel, Atlanta, Georgia; MARLER—PacificGas and Electric, San Francisco, California; NELSON—National Science

Foundation, Washington, D.C.; PIELKE SR.—Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado; PIRONE—WSI Corp., Billerica,Massachusetts; PRATER—Innovative Emergency Management, BatonRouge, Louisiana; QUALLEY—American Airlines, Fort Worth, Texas;SIMMONS—Oklahoma City University, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;SMITH—WeatherData, Inc., Wichita, Kansas; THOMSON—Weathernews, Inc., San Francisco, California; WILSON—BaronServices, Huntsville, AlabamaCORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dr. Roger A. Pielke Jr., Center forScience and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado/CIRES, 1333 Grandview Ave., Campus Box 488, Boulder, CO80309-0488E-mail: [email protected]: 10.1175/BAMS-84-7-Pielke

In final form 27 September 2001©2003 American Meteorological Society

rivate sector meteorology is a rapidly growing en-terprise with, by some estimates, a global markettotaling in the billions of dollars. Further, deci-

sions made in consideration of weather informationare related to trillions of dollars in the U.S. economyalone. For instance, the Bureau of Economic Analy-

JULY 2003|ES54

sis estimated in 1998 that 42% of the $9 trillion U.S.economy was in some way sensitive to weather andclimate (NRC 1998). The growth of the private sec-tor is an indication of the growing perception of gov-ernments and industry that weather information is ofincreasing value and relevance to the nation’s eco-nomic competitiveness.

At the same time some in the weather researchcommunity have expressed concerns over an appar-ent growing gap between the production of scientificknowledge of weather and its use in the developmentand improvement of operational meteorologicalproducts. In 2000 the National Research Council(NRC) wrote that

Current weather and climate forecasting services areunder considerable stress just to meet daily demandsand have limited capabilities and resources for effi-cient integration and exploitation of new researchresults. Thus, many potential benefits in the nationpromised by research breakthroughs are as yet un-realized (NRC 2000, p. 14).

The report warns that

Until current advances are incorporated effectivelyinto operational forecasts, the nation will not real-ize the attendant benefits of its research investment.It is important to understand the transition process[of research to operations] and to ensure its efficientoperation. Otherwise, impediments that may existnow will become more problematic in the future asa consequence of expanded demands on thenation’s weather and climate forecasting (NRC2000, p. 17).

The NRC (2000) report goes on to discuss severalalternatives for enhancing the connections of researchand operations in certain parts of the U.S. NationalWeather Service (NWS). But to date, little attentionhas been paid to the connections of the meteorologi-cal research community to the scientific researchneeds of the private sector.

Thus, given the apparent conflict between grow-ing demands for weather information and fundamen-tal limitations on the transitions of research to prod-ucts, the time is ripe to stimulate a more activedialogue between the “basic” research communityand those individuals and businesses that provideweather services to myriad customers across the glo-bal economy. The dialogue is complicated by a num-ber of factors, not the least of which is an historicaltension between public and private providers of

weather services that remains in the view of many tobe satisfactorily addressed. Other complicating fac-tors include national technology policies for the com-mercialization of technology, university–govern-ment–industry relations and the role of facultymembers in commercial enterprises, and the idiosyn-cratic nature of the weather community itself.

To begin to stimulate a dialogue on the connec-tions of weather research with the private sector, inDecember 2000, the U.S. Weather Research Program(USWRP) organized a workshop, held in PalmSprings, California, to bring together weather re-searchers from academia and representatives of pri-vate sector meteorology to discuss needs, wants, op-portunities, and challenges and how to enhance thelinkages between the two relatively detached commu-nities. Workshop participants addressed questionsthat included the following:

a) What research is needed and desired by privatesector meteorologists?

b) What are the current scientific priorities of the re-search community?

c) How are questions a and b related? How can therelationship improve?

d) How can the “basic” research community of physi-cal and social scientists better support private sec-tor meteorology?

e) How can research findings become more rapidly“infused” into practical products?

f) How can concerns of end users become more ef-fectively integrated with the research process viaprivate sector meteorology?

The goal of the workshop was for participants toachieve a shared understanding of the relations ofresearch and private sector meteorology, and to sharethis understanding with the broader community.Ultimately a better understanding of these relationscould help contribute to reducing the gap betweenweather research and its transition into products usedby decision makers, which is an important step inimproving the connections of research and societalneeds. This workshop report is intended as one smallstep in that direction.

RESEARCH AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR.At the workshop it became readily apparent that thelanguage initially used to describe participants—pri-vate sector and researchers—was hopelessly inad-equate. Though by no means a new trend, participantspointed out that increasingly researchers are involvedwith commercialization and private sector entities

JULY 2003AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY | ES55

support research and development.1 The conventionalnotion that the private sector “sits” between the Na-tional Weather Service and end users “addingvalue”—under the traditional linear model of inno-vation with basic research on one end and end userson the other—is obsolete; reality is much more com-plex (e.g., Hooke and Pielke 2000; Pielke and Byerly1998; NRC 1992, 2000). Thus, workshop participantsresolved that characterizations such as “private sector”or “academic” should be interpreted as a reflection ofwhere people sit, and not what each actually does.

The federal government invests a significantamount of resources in weather research and opera-tions. Figure 1 shows the federal investment inweather from 1979 to 2000, based on data publishedby the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteo-rological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM)[as well as additional research carried out in the Na-tional Science Foundation’s (NSF) Mesoscale DynamicMeteorology and Meteorology and Physical Meteo-rology divisions, and the National Center for Atmo-spheric Research’s (NCAR) NSF-supported Mesos-cale and Microscale Meteorology program]. Figure 2shows in constant dollars the federal support forweather activities classified by OFCM as “research”and “operations” (with operations referring primarilyto the activities of the National Weather Service). Fig-ure 3 shows the same data relative to 1979 as a baseyear. Figure 4 shows the distribution of weather re-search funding across the federal agencies. Consider-ation of climate research, observations, and operationswould add at least several billion dollars to the totalsdiscussed here for weather (see, e.g., Pielke 2000).

At the workshop it was also readily apparent thatthe USWRP had little saliency outside of the academiccommunity. In the broader context of federal weatherexpenditures the U.S. Weather Research Program hasan overarching goal:

to accelerate improvement in high-impact weatherforecasting capability—in particular, improvementin forecast timing, location, and specific rainfallamounts associated with hurricane landfall andflood events that significantly affect the lives andproperty of U.S. inhabitants.2

To achieve this goal the USWRP further proposes thefollowing:

to coordinate a multiagency initiative of directedresearch including incremental funds of approxi-mately $145 million over a sustained five-year pe-riod (FY 2002 through 2006). The proposed incre-ment represents approximately a 50–75% increaseof resources currently available to study the high-im-pact forecast problems related to hurricane landfall,heavy precipitation, and floods; optimization of thenational observational infrastructure; and societalimpacts.2

Of course, advances in the science of meteorologymean little in terms of practical benefits if those ad-vances do not lead to useful products or services.Thus, the USWRP seeks to conduct research that willboth improve forecasts and the use of forecasts.Establishing improved linkages with the private sec-

1 Indeed the curricula vitae of participants showed that manyfrom the research community were involved with the privatesector through commercialization, consulting, and boardmembership. Similarly, many of the participants from the pri-vate sector received funding from government agencies thatsupport research.

FIG. 1. Total federal weather expenditures FY 1979–2000. Included are agencies listed the Office of the Fed-eral Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Sup-porting Research (OFCM) annual Federal Plan, NSF’sMesoscale Dynamic Meteorology and Meteorology/Physical Meteorology divisions, and NCAR’s Mesoscaleand Microscale Meteorology Program.

2 Taken from the USWRP’s Vision Document 2000–2006, avail-able online at http://mrd3.nssl.ucar.edu/USWRP/USWRP_Vision.html. To reconcile the OFCM budget informa-tion and that presented in the USWRP Vision Document, notethat the USWRP Vision Document is referring to only thatsubset of the overall federal budget devoted to weather relatedto the USWRP foci. The weather community would benefitfrom a more systematic and comprehensive perspective on thesize and composition of investment in weather and climateresearch (R. A. Pielke Jr. and R. Carbone 2002).

JULY 2003|ES56

tor is consequently an important objective of theUSWRP (see, e.g., Pielke et al. 1997).3

In the context of meteorology the phrase privatesector is frequently used with various, and sometimesconflicting, meanings. Traditionally, private sectormeteorology refers to those businesses that provideweather information to paying customers. Today,such a narrow definition of the private sector mightbe defined as the members of the CommercialWeather Services Association (CWSA) or the Na-tional Council of Industrial Meteorologists (NCIM)(as well as other companies and consultants not mem-bers of these trade groups).4 A broader definition ofthe private sector might include those businesses (andrelated trade organizations) that manufacture weatherinstruments, radar, terminals, and other research anddevelopment that compose the public and privateinfrastructure of weather research and operations. Aneven broader definition would include companies andtrade organizations in the media, for example,Internet, newspapers, and television outlets that re-ceive revenue for weather content. Such companiescould be primary or secondary (or even further or-

der) producers, disseminators, or integrators ofweather information. More recently, companies re-lated to financial services, such as catastrophe mod-elers and providers of weather derivatives, have estab-lished a significant foothold in the market. Thesecompanies and their representatives as well might beincluded in a definition of the private sector. Finally,there are companies in energy, transportation, logis-tics, and agriculture (to name just a few sectors) thatemploy in-house meteorological expertise and shouldbe considered an important part of private sectormeteorology.

In short, the definition of the private sector de-pends critically on what is included under the defini-tion. Under the narrowest of definitions presentedabove, private sector meteorology had an estimated$500 million in revenues in 1999, up from $200 mil-lion in 1990 (Guth 2000). Under the broader defini-tions, reliable tabulations of revenues are not readilyavailable, but it is not unreasonable to estimate thebroader market for weather- and climate-relatedproducts and services, that is, including the media andfinancial services, to be in the billions, and perhapstens of billions, of dollars.

At the Palm Springs workshop it was frequentlyobserved that once one adopts a broad definition ofresearch–private sector interactions, then a widerange of disciplinary expertise becomes directly rel-evant (e.g., finance, risk management, marketing,operations management, logistics, etc.), well beyondthe scope of the USWRP (with its foci on the physi-cal and social sciences). Thus, the focus of the PalmSprings workshop was primarily the connection of thephysical and social sciences research of the USWRPand private sector meteorology, narrowly defined.However, it is expected that many of the issues and

FIG. 2. Expenditures for federal weather research andoperations, FY 1979–2000. We define “research” toinclude OFCM supporting research, NSF’s MesoscaleDynamic Meteorology and Meteorology/Physical Me-teorology divisions, and the NCAR’s Mesoscale andMicroscale Meteorology Program. “Operations” isdefined in terms of the OFCM’s definition.

FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but with expenditures in relationto FY 1979 = 1 as a base year.

3 For more background on the USWRP visit their Web site:http://uswrp.org.

4 See their Web sites: www.weather-industry.com andww.ncim.org, respectively. The CWSA uses the phrase com-mercial meteorology to distinguish the subset of the privatesector that provides weather services.


widespread agreement that the government’s roleis to enhance the competitive advantage of theUnited States firms in international commerce andto increase innovation rates and productively hereat home, without disrupting markets or spendingpublic funds inappropriately.

A consequence of the atmospheric science comm-unity’s absence in the U.S. technology policy discus-sions is that there exists no formal technology policyfor meteorology, or perhaps more accurately, the poli-cies that do exist, which together compose a de factotechnology policy for meteorology, fail to incorporatethe broader lessons of the nation’s technology policydebates.

One of the most profound changes in the nation’stechnology policy is recognition that

skill, imagination, and knowledge, together withnew forms of institutional collaboration betweenfirms, universities, and government, can make prod-ucts and services more effective and productive.Thus, technology policy must be user-centered anddemand-based, in contrast to a supply-side ap-proach (Branscomb and Florida 1999, 6–7).

Such a perspective requires closer collaboration andinteractions between the producers of knowledge andthose who use knowledge to develop, produce, anddeliver products and services. In the context of me-teorology, this means that researchers must workmore closely with government agencies and the pri-vate sector. The interactions of research and opera-tional meteorology are challenging enough (e.g., NRC2000); however, interactions between researchers whoare primarily government funded and the private sec-tor brings its own set of unique challenges:

lessons raised in this context could easily have broaderrelevance in the context of more encompassing defi-nitions of research–private sector relations related toweather and climate. Similarly, the discussions fo-cused on the United States, but were not exclusive ofother country’s perspectives, particularly the perspec-tives offered by workshop participants from Canadaand Europe (see sidebars).

An organization represented at the meeting fromneither academia nor the private sector was theAmerican Meteorological Society (AMS) which formany years has served as a valuable interface betweenthe two groups. The AMS Ten-Year Vision Study(AMS 1998) reports that as of 1996 government em-ployed 33% of AMS members; 28% were in the pri-vate sector (including broadcast); and 28% were en-gaged in research or academic positions atuniversities, government laboratories, or nonprofitinstitutions. The private sector is the fastest-growingsegment of the Society, and will be well in excess ofone-half of the membership by 2005. The AMS playsa unique role in the community, one that surfaced re-peatedly at the workshop (and is discussed ingreater detail later).

THE TECHNOLOGY POLICY CONTEXT.Given the large government support of meteorologi-cal research and the desire of policy makers, academ-ics, and those in the private sector to see the results ofthat research result in benefits to society, the relationof the weather research and the private sector is a mat-ter of national technology policy. Oddly, the atmo-spheric sciences community was not at all a consider-ation in the national debates over technology policy thatoccurred in the 1980s and 1990s (see, e.g., Bromley1990; Branscomb 1992; Clinton and Gore 1993; Na-tional Academy of Engineering 1993; Branscomb andKeller 1999a). But what, exactly, is “technologypolicy?” According to Branscomb (1993, p. 3),

a technology is the aggregation of capabilities, fa-cilities, skills, knowledge, and organization re-quired to successfully create a useful service orproduct. Technology policy concerns the publicmeans for nurturing those capabilities and optimiz-ing their applications in the service of national goalsand the public interest . . . technology policy mustinclude not only science policy—concern for thehealth and effectiveness of the research enterprise—but also all other elements of the innovation pro-cess, including design, development, and manufac-turing, and the infrastructure, organization, andhuman resources on which they depend. There is

FIG. 4. Federal funding for federal agencies for weatherin FY 2000.

JULY 2003|ES58

The new way of working with the private sector putsheavy demands on government officials. It was easyto run a technology policy when government de-cided what research was needed, agreed to pay forit, and picked people to do it. Now government mustwork more by indirection and must understand theway the new economy works, sector by sector(Branscomb and Florida 1999, p. 7).

In some respects, such a perspective has a long his-tory in meteorology (e.g., Changnon 2000; NRC1998). But in other respects, considerable opportu-nity exists for the meteorological community to im-prove its technology policies in such a way as to fa-cilitate the more efficient transfer of knowledge intobenefits for society.

Central elements of technology policy are the in-stitutional mechanisms of technology transfer; that is,

the process through which new technologies are cre-ated, commercialized, and adopted involve manydifferent organizations and an extensive flow of in-

formation. Technology transfer within and amongorganizations underpins the translation of scienceinto products, as well as the adoption of new prod-ucts and processes. . . . It is based to a large extenton the ability of individuals and groups of individu-als involved in research to interact with those re-sponsible for technology commercialization (NRC1992, p. 16).

The federal government and public and privateuniversities have invested considerable effort in de-veloping mechanisms to stimulate technology trans-fer in areas such as health, defense, and energy (e.g.,GAO 1998, 1999; Gutson and Kenniston 1994). Suchmechanisms are not without controversy and ongo-ing debate (e.g., Press and Washburn 2000). But thecentral lesson for the atmospheric sciences is that al-though the meteorological community has involve-ment in technology transfer activities (in some casesconsiderable, see, e.g., Table 1), there remains signifi-cant untapped opportunity for taking systematic ad-vantage of lessons learned in other sectors from the

The Canadian Weather ResearchProgram (CWRP) was initiated in1999 under the leadership of theMeteorological Service of Canada(MSC). Recognizing the limitedresources available in Canada forweather research within govern-ment, the private sector, and theuniversity community, the CWRPobjective is to engage a focusedcollaborative research effort toreduce the impacts from severeweather in Canada.

CWRP is well supported withinthe MSC (research and opera-tions), and welcomed by theuniversity weather researchcommunity. Private sectorinvolvement is evolving, dependingon the nature of the organization:

· The Insurance Bureau ofCanada is funding an Institutefor Catastrophic Loss Reduc-tion (ICLR). The ICLR issupporting a research chair inextreme weather at McGillUniversity as part of theCWRP. ICLR would like to see

CWRP eventually become partof a national Natural DisasterResearch Network.

· Canada’s Weather Networkemploys professional meteo-rologists, but has limitedinfrastructure for scientificprofessional development. Theyare interested in partneringwith the CWRP to give theirstaff training and developmentopportunities.

· In Montreal, the provincial andfederal governments, alongwith industry, have partnered innonprofit research and technol-ogy transfer centers (e.g., seetheir Web site:www.cerca.umontreal.ca).Scientists from CWRP arecurrently considering establish-ment of a new center focusingon hydrometeorologicalresearch and development inpartnership with Hydro-Quebec.

Dr. I. Zawadzki, McGill Univer-sity has agreed to assume the role

of lead scientist, and formed aScientific Steering Committee(CWRP-SSC) composing MSCand university scientists, as well asR. Carbone, NCAR and theWorld Weather ResearchProgram (WWRP). Recently, thegovernment of Canada hasannounced the formation of theCanadian Foundation for Climateand Atmospheric Science(CFCAS). CFCAS includesextreme weather as a majorpriority within this $60 millionfund, to be used for universityresearch over the next six years.The challenge for CWRP is toconvince CFCAS principalinvestigators to develop proposalsunder the CWRP umbrella. Giventhe strong two-way link of CWRPwith the operational weatherprediction program, it is hopedthat scientists will see theirresearch as being sustainable byworking within this partnership toultimately show benefits tosociety.

PARTNERSHIPS AND THE CANADIAN WEATHER RESEARCH PROGRAM


ongoing national debatesover technology policy.5

ISSUES RAISED ATTHE PALM SPRINGSWORKSHOP. TheUSWRP organized the PalmSprings workshop to bringinto the open participants’perspectives about the inter-face of research and the pri-vate sector, to discuss thesources of those concerns,and to recommend coursesof action over both long andshort terms that might bestserve the community’sshared interests. Participant’sidentified the following areasas particular concerns: uni-versity faculty interactionswith the private sector, pri-vate sector participation inpublicly supported research,university faculty participa-tion in commercialization,federal policy for the provi-sion of meteorological ser-vices, and education. The fol-lowing subsections discusseach in turn.

University faculty interactionswith the private sector. In re-cent decades there has beenan accelerating move towardmarrying university researchto business needs and thishas produced noticeable results in a relatively shortspan of time (Gutson and Kenniston 1994; Krenz1996; Brooks and Randazzese 1999). Having univer-sity researchers and business experts work togetherto understand the needs of the science has been dem-onstrated to bring much quicker results than eachworking independently (e.g., Becker 2000). Govern-ment funds, augmented by business and universitydollars, can easily be leveraged with other researchprogram money. But the new university–business re-

lationship has stimulated difficult policy questionsabout appropriate roles and responsibilities (e.g.,Andreopolos 1995; Press and Washburn 2000). Evenas the long history of relative disconnect between re-searchers’ work and the needs of the private sectorhas diminished across the sciences over the past sev-eral years, a more concerted effort is needed to bridgethat gap in the atmospheric science. Historically, thishas occurred through conferences and symposia, butwith the more rapid electronic communication, otheravenues have become available. Workshop partici-pants suggested a need for increasing private sectorparticipation in publicly supported research and forincreasing opportunities for academics in the privatesector.

TABLE 1. Companies or product lines identified by NOAA/Environmen-tal Technology Laboratory (ETL). [Source: http://www.etl.noaa.gov/management/techtransfer.htm.]

Aerovironment Started new product line (acoustic sounder)

Arctic Sciences Acoustic current meters, from an ETL patent

ATI B. Dagal, H. Zimmerman, sonic anemometers

Atmospheric Instrumentation Manufacturing ETL-developed instrumentsResearch, Inc., Boulder, CO

Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT Optical turbulence meters

Dove Electronics, Rome, NY Spatial filter profilers

Erbtech Manufactures radar systems based on ETLdesign

Geospace, Melbourne, FL Manufactured ETL-developed instruments

Geotech, Garland, TX Manufactured ETL-developed instruments

J. Hill Radiometers measuring liquid water

Kahl Scientific Licensed to manufacture ETL-developedinstrument

Paneltec, Inc., Boulder, CO M. Reshnetnik, antenna clutter screens for915-MHz profiler

Paramax Unisys, started new product line (404-MHzwind profiler and Radio Acoustic SoundingSystem

Qualimetrics, Sacramento, CA Manufacturing ETL-developed instruments

Radian Corporation Started new product line (915-MHz windprofiler and RASS)

Radiometrics Dual-channel radiometers

Sonic Boom, Long Island, NY Manufacturing ETL-developed instruments

Xonics Started new product line (acoustic sounder)

5 For more on technology policy, see Harvard University’sProject on Technology Policy Assessment, online atwww.ksg.harvard.edu/iip/techproj/home.html.

JULY 2003|ES60

Weathernews operates worldwidewith major forecast centers inJapan, the United States, theUnited Kingdom, and Australia,and additional forecasting capabili-ties in Germany, South Korea, andMalaysia. The attitude of and therelationship with National Meteo-rological Services (NMSs) variesmarkedly from area to area, withthe greatest contrast existingbetween the United States andEurope.

There are many—mainlysmall—private meteorologicalcompanies in Europe, with themajor private commercial activitybeing in the United Kingdom andGermany. Private companies alsoexist in Norway, Sweden, Finland,France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain,the Czech Republic, and Ireland.

In all of these countries themajor provider of commercialservices is the local NMS, with theUnited Kingdom, Germany,France, and Sweden being themost active. In most otherEuropean countries the relevantNMS provides commercialservices, with perhaps Hungarybeing the most active.

It will come as no surprise thatthe European private sector viewsthe activities of NMSs as unfaircompetition, and althoughseparate accounting of public andprivate sector activities is asupposed requirement, there arestill suspicions of cross subsidiza-tion between the two spheres ofactivity.

For a number of years, privatesector companies have lobbiedgovernment and the EuropeanCommission about the commer-

cial activities of European NMSsand the restriction of data underthe terms of World Meteorologi-cal Organization (WMO) Resolu-tion 40, but all to no avail. Whilethere may be a case for theprivate sector to make directcontribution to core costs ofNMSs by the purchase of someforms of data, the very fact thatthe costs of data are set by theNMSs themselves does not appearto us to be either correct or fair. Ido not advocate payment forsynoptic data but perhaps pay-ment for detailed model outputcan be justified.

The fundamental differencebetween NMSs and private sectorcompanies is the bottom line.Private companies will fail andclose down if they are unprofit-able; the commercial arm of anNMS does not appear to besubject to the same fate if it is notprofitable, however, that mayneed to be defined.

The reader may be aware thatone European NMS, namely, theNetherlands, has physicallyseparated its public and commer-cial activities, and that the com-mercial entity, Holland WeatherServices, is likely to become anongovernment-owned companyin the near future. We hope thatother European NMSs will followthis approach, but we are notholding our breath.

Perhaps our major cause forconcern is the noncommercialpricing practices indulged in bycertain European NMSs. We areaware of prices being offered thatcan in no way cover the cost of aservice. While such an approach

might be considered a propercommercial approach as a lossleader, to do this for a wholerange of products would becommercial suicide for a privatecompany. We are even aware ofcases where an NMS has openlystated that price did not matterand that if necessary they wouldprovide a free service to ensurethat a contract was not gained bya private sector company.

The above is today’s situation,but what of the future? It ispossible that through amalgam-ation or acquisition the number ofsignificant private companies inEurope will decrease. A smallernumber of larger and moresophisticated companies wouldprovide a greater challenge to theNMSs even if a number of verysmall companies continued toserve niche markets. Privatesector companies must makeevery attempt to win contractsfrom government departments,contracts that at present—almostby default—are awarded to NMSs.

There seems little doubt thatin Europe today in meteorologicalcircles, both public and private,there is much greater sympathytoward the American approach tocommercial meteorology and wedo foresee that within the nextfew years other NMSs will followthe Dutch example and thatcloser cooperation between publicand private sectors will beestablished to the benefit both ofthe meteorological communityand the citizens of Europe.

— John ThomsonWeathernews

COMMERCIAL METEOROLOGY—A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

Private sector participation in publicly supported research.A review of meteorological publications from the1950s reveals the private sector conducted and pub-lished a considerable amount of applied research, of-ten funded by the U.S. Weather Bureau or other fed-eral agencies. A contemporary review of the samepublications reveals much fewer papers authored orcoauthored by researchers in the private sector. As

society becomes more and more vulnerable to theadverse affects of weather, mitigation techniques andstrategies become increasingly important and thus sotoo does the need for the development of productsand services (Emanuel et al. 1995, 1997; Pielke et al.1997). Commercial weather companies generally areclose to their clients and so have insights into eco-nomic consequences of weather that can readily


complement the ongoing meteorology and social sci-ence research supported by the public sector.

University faculty participation in commercialization.Across science and technology, there is a long historyof close relations between universities and the privatesector. This is true in weather as well. For instance,Joel Myers started AccuWeather when he was at ThePennsylvania State University (Penn State). More re-cently, University of Oklahoma (OU) faculty mem-bers played a central role in the startup of WeatherDecision Technologies, Inc. And of course a consid-erable fraction of university faculty provides servicesas consultants.

Even with the general support for commercializa-tion and consulting activities, all academic institutionsrequire that the primary emphasis of full-time facultymembers be the university or college. These activitiesare typically separated into teaching and mentorship,research, and outreach and service. Tenure and pro-motion progress, as well as yearly evaluation and post-tenure assessments, are based on the documentationof these three areas. Outside consulting and privatesector work are permitted, but depending on the uni-versity, it may or may not be considered part of out-reach and service. The University of Oklahoma, forexample, specifies that when “the services desiredfrom outside the University exceed a reasonable andmutually agreed limit, direct extra remuneration maybe accepted, provided the extent of involvement doesnot infringe on the consultant’s regular Universityduties.” At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), interaction with industry and the businesscommunity is explicitly listed in their policy state-ment, and the “continuous, active participation of itsfaculty . . .” in this area, as well as in government, areencouraged. At Colorado State University, the “Uni-versity encourages engagement in professional activi-ties such as . . . appropriate consulting activities.”Consulting is “one means to facilitate the flow of in-formation and development of technologies.” Eachuniversity requires disclosure of these outside activi-ties, although the amount of financial remunerationis not required to be reported.

Patents and the licensing of software and otherintellectual property is another avenue for interac-tion between university faculty and the private sec-tor.6 Faculty members are required to report com-mercially valuable products to the university,

although this requirement is not generally enforced.A lack of faculty participation would circumventthe goal of the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act (P.L. 96-517,Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980) inwhich universities retain ownership to inventionsmade under federally funded research (see Gao 1998for discussion). In return, universities are expectedto file for patent and license protection and to ensurecommercialization. Foundations affiliated with uni-versities have been established to manage the com-mercialization process and to allocate royalties asspecified. Colorado State University, for example,distributes 30%, 15%, and 15% to the inventor(s), tothe college(s)/department(s), and to the vice presi-dent for research, respectively, with 40% retainedby the Colorado State University Research Founda-tion to support the technology transfer process andresearch.

At the department level, however, there can bediscouragements to participating in technology trans-fer. Faculty in the atmospheric sciences often feel thatthis activity is not appropriate for them or their col-leagues, nor should it be included in their professionalevaluations. For example, at the Department of At-mospheric Sciences at Colorado State University(CSU), a guideline limits outside consulting to 20 daysper year with only rare exceptions, and the faculty“may not serve as named investigators on researchproposals from public or private organizations otherthan CSU; exceptions to this include serving as amember of a science experiment team or a Small Busi-ness Innovative Research (SBIR) arrangement inwhich forthcoming contractual or grant relationshipswith CSU would normally accompany such designa-tion.” Policies that limit faculty interactions with busi-ness have the potential to violate the spirit, if not theletter, of the Bayh–Dole Act. Finding an appropriatemiddle ground should be a high priority for academicinstitutions across the atmospheric sciences.

Government policies that seek to motivate univer-sity interactions with business have raised issuesacross the sciences. For some scientists, the entirenotion of commercialization of research and devel-opment runs contrary to how they perceive the roleof science in society (Gugliotta 2000). At the sametime, some government and academic institutionsfind their best and brightest being lured by the highsalaries and perks that some industries can offer(Gugliotta 2000). In university settings, debate con-tinues over the perceived and actual conflicts of in-terests that can arise when faculty members take onsignificant corporate interests (O’Harrow 2000). Butthe flip side is that “some schools are finding that old

6 And between government researchers and the private sectoras well; see GAO (1999).

JULY 2003|ES62

restraints limiting a faculty member’s financial gainfrom university-sponsored research must be revisedor scrapped to keep star talent” (O’Harrow 2000).Universities are addressing many of these issues in thecontext of biomedical research where commercializa-tion has very large stakes (e.g., see Press andWashburn 2000). Although the stakes may not be aslarge in the atmospheric sciences, as weather and cli-mate knowledge becomes increasingly valued by de-cision makers, it is important for university atmo-spheric (and related) science departments to engagein the discussions taking place across campuses.

Federal policy for the provision of meteorological services.Since World War II, government officials and privatesector meteorologists have engaged in a “cold war”over the appropriate roles and responsibilities of each(DOC 1953; J. N. Myers 1999, personal communica-tion). The debate ebbs and flows with periods ofgreater and lesser tension, but it is always a consider-ation, explicitly or implicitly, in discussions about therelationship of research and operations (whether pub-lic or private). Participants at the Palm Springs work-shop did not seek to resolve this debate, but did rec-ognize that it has persisted for so long becausereasonable people can disagree about policy relatedto this issue. Participants also unanimously agreedthat it is in the best interest of the community to movebeyond the debate (that may in fact have a larger“middle ground” than traditionally thought), whichat times works at cross purposes to the shared objec-tive of improving society’s knowledge of weather andclimate for improved decision making.

From the perspective of researchers in the atmo-spheric sciences, one important measure of success-ful research and development is the successful trans-fer of technology to sustained operations, whether inthe public or private domains (NRC 1992). Such suc-cessful transfers provide a compelling justification forcontinued and even enhanced public investments inresearch. By contrast, research and research infra-structure that does not lead to systematic improve-ments in operations can lead to questions about thevalue of ongoing research investments, much lessto augmentations (see, e.g., R. A. Pielke Jr. andR. Carbone 2002). Thus, to the extent that the weathercommunity’s cold war acts to stifle or otherwise re-tard technology transfer, which is challenging enoughin even the best circumstances (NRC 2000;Branscomb and Keller 1999b), the entire researchcommunity suffers, as do the potential beneficiariesof potential products and services. Thus, workshopparticipants, without prejudging the outcome, shared

the view that the community must resolve the weatherservices cold war and settle any actual or perceivedpolicy issues that underlie the debate. Workshop par-ticipants looked to the American Meteorological So-ciety and the National Academy of Sciences as poten-tial mechanisms to assist in an authoritative andlasting solution.

Education. Private sector meteorology includes manyactivities, ranging from forecasting to consulting, tocustomized software development—to name a few.However, in addition to this wide range of activities,businesses seek employees with a basic understand-ing of how a for-profit enterprise operates and withthe skills necessary to help make it operate efficientlyand profitably. These include basic technical knowl-edge of meteorology, written and verbal communi-cation skills, and the ability to work with clients, man-agers, and coworkers. These skills can sometimes“make or break” departments or businesses. Privatesector meteorologists also often work with peoplefrom other disciplines. This requires an appreciationof the insights offered from other disciplines.

Undergraduate meteorology programs emphasizethe technical aspects of the science, which very ad-equately prepares undergraduates for careers in re-search laboratories, public sector meteorology, andgraduate school. As a result, many undergraduateshave good technical knowledge but lack the corre-sponding skills required in business. This leads toproblems for students entering the private sector andfor their employers. The academic community couldcontribute significantly to the development of theprivate sector, including its incorporation of the lat-est research and development products, by produc-ing graduates with the skills necessary to step into aweather and business setting. Some schools have be-gun to address this need, and others should follow(discussed more later).

WORKSHOP RECOMMENDATIONS. Partici-pants at the workshop developed recommendationsthat fit into two categories. The first category is thosesteps that could be taken to improve interactions inthe following areas: education, enhancing university–private sector interactions, nonprofit opportunities,and research on the economics of weather andweather forecasts. To make progress on each of theseareas will require a lasting commitment from manypeople. The second category includes steps that canbe taken immediately with little cost or effort, butcould nevertheless result in significant improvementin interactions between the research community and


the private sector. The following sections discuss thesetwo categories of recommendations.

Recommendations to improve interactions. EDUCATION.One solution to the need of the private sector for ex-pertise that marries technical or scientific knowledgeof meteorology with expertise in management or busi-ness lies in combined professional degree programs.These programs will also give students focused on anacademic career a broader skill set should they laterdecide to change career directions, and a broaderperspective that will be valuable in every career set-ting. A number of schools, such as Penn State and OU,have already begun programs in this direction. Theseefforts should be continued and enhanced with thebroad support of the community. Schools tradition-ally strong in business but not in meteorology shouldconsider partnering with schools with the opposite setof skills to develop innovative degrees and educationalopportunities. The AMS and the private sector couldfacilitate such partnering by making certain scholar-ships or fellowships contingent upon a combineddegree program.

For students currently in schools without such in-novative programs, faculty in the atmospheric sci-ences should allow and encourage students to applya number of business (or other relevant) courses to-ward undergraduate or graduate meteorology de-grees. However, it will also take time for policies likethis to be implemented, and students may not be ableto count on those changes occurring during the rela-tively few years that they are in school. With this inmind, students will need to take it upon themselvesto become more fully prepared for careers in the pri-vate sector. This could involve taking basic courses inbusiness, working in businesses (particularly in cus-tomer service–oriented positions that require writtenand oral communication skills), or, at the minimum,reading about business practices using textbooks andwidely available business publications.

ENHANCING UNIVERSITY FACULTY–PRIVATE SECTOR INTER-ACTIONS. Technology transfer activities such as patentsand licenses, consulting, and the establishment of fac-ulty business should be a recognized positive contri-bution to the professional evaluation of faculty. Theseactivities should be reported annually to assure posi-tive benefit to the university and to avoid actual orperceived conflicts of interest. A faculty membershould only be permitted to participate in these tech-nology transfer activities if he or she is evaluated asperforming at least satisfactory work at the university.However, if their performance is satisfactory, or bet-

ter, there should be no explicit limitations on theseactivities as long as their technology transfer workdoes not negatively impact on the university in accor-dance with the general university policy on commer-cialization (which differs across institutions). The in-tent of the Bayh–Dole Act, and the requirements ofthe university with respect to patent, software, andother intellectual property developments, should beenforced. Faculty needs to be educated that this is aresponsibility and obligation of their profession.

NONPROFIT OPPORTUNITIES. Since passage of the Bayh–Dole Act, some research organizations have creatednot-for-profit subsidiaries. Many universities, bothpublic and private, and the University Corporation forAtmospheric Research (UCAR) consider these501(c)(3) corporations to have been successful intransferring their science and technology into themarketplace. Revenue earned from these ventures isthen returned to the sponsoring organization, usuallyto support future research and technology transferprojects. It is only recently that changes in federal lawhave encouraged federal organizations to participatein technology transfer ventures via 501(c)(3) corpo-rations. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) hashad some initial success in such an effort (Markoff1999). Thus the possibility exists that the USWRP maybe able to work constructively with private companiesand individuals through an intermediate not-for-profit 501(c)(3) company—or in more flashy terms,the establishment of a nonprofit venture capital firmfor the atmospheric sciences. Such a company shouldhave the support of USWRP-sponsoring agencies, theAMS, and private sector trade groups.

RESEARCH ON ECONOMICS OF WEATHER AND WEATHER FORE-CASTS. Research on the effects of weather on societyand the value of forecasts has been recognized by theUSWRP for many years as an important element indeveloping science and technology projects to meetsocietal needs (Emanuel et al. 1997).7 Such researchcan also contribute to improving connections betweenresearch and the private sector by helping to estab-lish the market potential for products (and thus ripe-ness for commercialization), designing efficient pro-cesses for technology transfer (e.g., in considerationof factors such as the costs and benefits of alternativetechnologies), contributing to the prioritization pro-

7 In addition, the USWRP Impacts and Use Assessment Groupprovides guidance to the USWRP and it includes several mem-bers from the private sector. See their Web site at http://box.mmm.ucar.edu/uswrp/iuac/iuac_dir.html.

JULY 2003|ES64

cesses for science in light of the interests of the pri-vate sector, and so on. Several reports have describeda research agenda focused on “societal impacts” thatshould in the future include an even greater presencefrom the private sector (e.g., Glantz and Tarlton 1991;Pielke et al. 1996; Emanuel et al. 1995, 1997).

Lost-cost high-impact actions. SUMMARY SYMPOSIA. Aphrase that had circulated in the weather researchcommunity for a number of years is “low-hangingfruit,” which refers to those potential advances in sci-ence and technology that with relatively small mar-ginal cost could lead to disproportionately large ad-vances in weather forecasting or the use of forecasts.However, harvesting the low-hanging fruit has provedto present a greater challenge than the analogy mightimply. One way to focus on capturing the potentialbenefits of scientific and technological advanceswould be for the USWRP or AMS to hold meetingson highly focused topics—called summary sympo-sia—and include all of the expertise necessary to dis-cuss a forecast issue comprehensively: science, im-pacts, economics, technology transfer, business,government, etc. Such summary symposia would behighly different from USWRP Prospectus Develop-ment Teams in that they would focus on the detailsof particular forecast issues and develop a strategy fornot only science, but also for the use of that sciencein operational settings. Candidate areas that wouldappear ready for such an approach would includequantitative precipitation forecasting. The USWRPshould consider organizing in the near future such asummary symposia in partnership with the public andprivate sector operation communities.

OPERATIONAL “TEST BEDS” IN PRIVATE SECTOR SETTINGS. TheUSWRP has promoted the notion of “national testbedfacilities” that would serve as a mechanism for thetransfer of technology into operational settings. TheUSWRP defines testbeds as follows:

USWRP’s domain is exclusively in basic and ap-plied research. Federal agencies, such as the NWSand the U.S. Navy, have the responsibility of imple-menting new technology and concepts within theoperational forecast system, often with the assis-tance of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (NOAA’s) national research laborato-ries; private-sector companies also implementresearch results to improve products and servicesfor their clients. There is a region of overlap inwhich the USWRP must assist with the handoff ofresearch to operational agencies and the private

sector with “proof-of-concept” studies. These stud-ies will be expedited through the “national testbedfacilities” where researchers and operational staffswill easily be able to collaborate in testing andevaluating emerging technology. The first twotestbed facilities will be established at NOAA’sTropical Prediction Center in Miami, Florida, andExperimental Modeling Center of the NationalCenters for Environmental Prediction (NOAA/NCEP/EMC) in Camp Springs, Maryland. Withineach of these facilities, activities such as experimen-tal forecast evaluations using recent research resultsor new observational technology (e.g., targetedobservations) can be done without impacting theongoing forecast responsibilities of the centers.Researchers would have access to the full opera-tional data streams. USWRP will provide funding,through focused proposal-driven grants, to test outnew ideas for possible operational implementation.Activities in the testbed facilities would involveboth applied research and periods of experimentalforecasting using the new methods, models, andobservations in parallel with operational forecasts,thereby facilitating quantitative comparisons.These techniques and innovations, developed andevaluated with operational constraints in mind,would be more quickly and easily integrated intooperational system(s).2

Participants at the Palm Springs workshop encour-aged and supported the inclusion of the private sec-tor as a home for operational testbeds. Exact mecha-nisms for selecting companies to participate (e.g., viathe CWSA or some other umbrella group), cost shar-ing, and topical area prioritization should be discussedas soon as possible by the USWRP and put into place.The USWRP should strongly consider locating thethird testbed in a private sector setting.

SYSTEMATIC CROSS-FERTILIZATION AND ACCULTURATION. ThePalm Springs workshop revealed that a considerableobstacle to improved connections of academics andthose in the private sector is simply unfamiliarity withone another and the different institutional and cul-tural settings in which each operates. But at the PalmSprings meeting participants also quickly realized thatno matter where each individual sat, each shared acommon goal of using science and technology to ben-efit society. This common goal provides a basis forworking past other differences. Participants recom-mend the following as ways that cross-fertilizationand acculturation might be accomplished more sys-tematically:


• Private companies should invite university andgovernment researchers, particularly those locatedlocally, to their businesses to familiarize them withtheir operations.

• University departments should likewise invite rep-resentatives of the private sector into their depart-ments and classrooms to give seminars or shortcourses.

• Scientific and planning meetings should be held onoccasion at or near private sector companies.

• University, government, and nongovernment ad-visory committees should more systematically in-clude representatives of the private sector. TheCWSA, NCIM, and other industry groups or theAMS could help to select appropriate expertise andmaintain a balance of representation.

• Similarly, boards of private companies should lookmore frequently at including representation fromthe academic communities.

Such steps would provide a greater degree of in-teraction between the various communities.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION. The AMS (or another authori-tative organization) should develop a more visible andeasy-to-use Web site related to issues pertaining to theprivate sector. Such a Web site should have a bulletinboard(s) for easy communication on important issues,up-to-date information of relevance to the commu-nity, and a clearinghouse for making connections be-tween different bodies of expertise. The AMS shouldalso consider commissioning review papers by expertsin relevant scientific areas to overview, in nontechni-cal terms, the most significant research finding of thepast year in order to facilitate the private sector’s ac-cess to the voluminous and highly specialized litera-ture. Such reviews would focus on advances in fore-casts and the use of forecasts, and as well would seekto identify areas particularly ripe for commercializa-tion or entry to operations.

Many private sector representatives at the PalmSprings workshop expressed interest in participatingin the UCAR Cooperative Program for OperationalMeteorology, Education and Training (COMET) pro-gram. Participation could involve training of privatesector meteorologists as well as training by privatesector meteorologists. UCAR and NWS should workwith appropriate private sector organizations to ex-plore possibilities for such participation.

A CATALYST FOR EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE: THE AMERICAN

METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY. Palm Springs workshop par-ticipants recognized the critical role played by the

American Meteorological Society at the interface ofresearch and the private sector. The AMS in the pasthas played an extremely valuable role at this interfaceand, judging by the frequency that the AMS was re-ferred to in workshop discussions and recommenda-tions, will continue to play a critical role in the future.Participants noted that in order for the AMS to prop-erly serve its large and growing private sector con-stituency, the leadership and infrastructure of theSociety must reflect the composition of the Society asa whole. Membership on the Council, on lead com-mittees, and elected Fellows and Honorary Membersshould move toward matching the proportion of theprivate sector in the Society.

In addition, the Ten-Year Vision study also rec-ommends that the AMS sponsor high-level symposiadevoted to discussing the health of the profession, theways in which the private sector, government services,the universities, and private and public research en-tities can work together for the benefit of all. TheAtmospheric Policy Program provides a venue forsuch symposia.

CONCLUSIONS. The partnership among the pub-lic, private, and academic sectors is vital to the provi-sion of effective climate and weather services. It iscritical that the communities work together and notat cross purposes in the broader national arena. Therehave been unfortunate cases in the past where vari-ous representatives of the different sectors have spo-ken out, or even testified, against other sectors. Thisdivisive approach presents the image to policy mak-ers of a community that is divided and cannot speakwith a unified voice. Each component is vital to theimproved services. Each needs to be acknowledged bythe other segments of the community and providedattribution for their contributions.

All too often over the past few years the weathercommunity, which includes research, government,and private sector elements, has worked at cross-pur-poses. Each of these elements has viewed the otherwith suspicion, confident that they could ignore theneeds and desires of the other members of the com-munity and focus on their own interests. When theseinterests involve funding, some have even come to seethis as a zero-sum contest within the weather com-munity, where for someone to win funding, someoneelse has to lose.

The reality is that the weather community is a verysmall player in a very large economy. Those in thecommunity may recognize the very important roleweather plays in many economic and societal deci-sions, but very few people outside of our community

JULY 2003|ES66

do. The weather community needs to focus its effortson communicating the vital and substantial roleweather plays in all sectors of the economy and soci-ety. If we are able to increase our community’s vis-ibility so that others can discover its importance, thenall will benefit.

Each player in the weather community, public orprivate, academic or operational, needs to recognizethat the challenge faced by the community is not sci-entific but perceptual. If the community can articu-late the potential value weather knowledge and in-formation brings to society, and take those stepsnecessary to turn that potential value into actualvalue, then the prospects of the entire weather com-munity will increase substantially. No individualplayer or element can accomplish this alone. It canonly happen if the community works together. Es-tablishing more effective interactions between aca-demics and the private sector is an important step inthe right direction.

REFERENCESAMS, 1998: Ten-year study: Report to the Council of the

AMS by the Planning Commission. AMS, Boston,MA, 21 pp. [Available online at http://w w w . a m e t s o c . o r g / A M S / E X E C / T e n Y e a r /index.html.]

Andreopolos, S., 1995: Marriage of convenience.Stanford Med., Summer 1995, 4–8, 32.

Becker, G. S., 2000: Cracking the genetic code: Com-petition was the catalyst. Business Week, 14 August,26.

Branscomb, L. M., 1992: Does America need a technol-ogy policy? Harvard Business Rev., 70, March–April,24–31.

——, 1993: Empowering Technology: Implementing a U.S.Strategy. The MIT Press, 315 pp.

——, and R. Florida, 1999: Challenges to technologypolicy in a changing world economy. Investing in In-novation: Creating a Research and Innovation Policythat Works, L. M. Branscomb and J. H. Keller, Eds.,The MIT Press, 3–39.

——, and J. H. Keller, 1999a: Investing in Innovation:Creating a Research and Innovation Policy thatWorks. The MIT Press, 516 pp.

——, and ——, 1999b: Towards a research and innova-tion policy. Investing in Innovation: Creating a Re-search and Innovation Policy that Works, L. M.Branscomb and J. H. Keller, Eds., The MIT Press,462–496.

Bromley, D. A., 1990: The U.S. technology policy. Execu-tive Office of the President, September 26, 1990.

Brooks, H., and L. P. Randazzese, 1999: University–in-dustry relations: The next four years and beyond.Investing in Innovation: Creating a Research and In-novation Policy that Works, L. M. Branscomb and J.H. Keller, Eds., The MIT Press, 361–399.

Changnon, S. A., 2000: El Niño to 1997–1998: The ClimateEvent of the Century. Oxford University Press, 215 pp.

Clinton, W. M., and A. Gore Jr., 1993: Technology forAmerica’s economic growth: A new direction tobuild economic strength. The White House. [Avail-able online at http://simr02.si.ehu.es/DOCS/nearnet.gnn.com/mag/10_93/articles/clinton/clinton.tech.html.]

DOC, 1953: Weather is the nation’s business. Depart-ment of Commerce Advisory Committee onWeather Services Report, ID# C30.2:W37/6, U.S.Government Printing Office, 63 pp.

Emanuel, K., and Coauthors, 1995: Report of the FirstProspectus Development Team of the U.S. WeatherResearch Program to NOAA and the NSF. Bull.Amer. Meteor. Soc., 76, 1194–1208.

——, and Coauthors, 1997: Observations in aid ofweather prediction for North America: Report ofProspectus Development Team Seven. Bull. Amer.Meteor. Soc., 78, 2859–2868.

GAO, 1998: Technology transfer: Administraiton of theBayh–Dole Act by research universities. GAO. Rep.GAO/RCED-98-126, Washington, DC, 83 pp.

——, 1999: Technology transfer: Number and charac-teristics of inventions licensed by six federal agen-cies. GAO Rep. GAO/RCED-99-173, Washington,DC, 50 pp.

Glantz, M. G., and L. Tarlton, 1991: Mesoscale researchinitiative: Societal aspects. Workshop Report, Na-tional Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder,CO, Environmental and Societal Impacts Group,38 pp. [Available online at www.esig.ucar.edu/mesoreport.html.]

Gugliotta, G., 2000: Scientists toil for love, not money.Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 17 July, 29.

Guth, R. A., 2000: Japan’s weather mogul to storm U.S.Wall Street Journal, 30 October, B15.

Gutson, D. H., and K. Keniston, 1994: The Fragile Con-tract: University Science and the Federal Government.The MIT Press, 244 pp.

Hooke, W. H., and R. A. Pielke Jr., 2000: Short-termweather prediction: An orchestra in search of a con-ductor. Prediction: Decision Making and the Futureof Nature, D. Sarewitz, R. A. Pielke Jr., and R. Byerly,Eds., Island Press, 61–84.

Krenz, G. D., 1996: Proceedings of the 1996 Jerome B.Wiesner Symposium: The Future of the Government/University Partnership. University of Michigan, 251 pp.


Markoff, J., 1999: High-tech advances push C.I.A. intonew company. New York Times, 29 September.

National Academy of Engineering, 1993: Mastering aNew Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Eco-nomic Performance. National Academy Press, 144 pp.

NRC, 1992: The Government Role in Civilian Technol-ogy: Building a New Alliance. National AcademyPress, 222 pp.

——, 1998: The Atmospheric Sciences: Entering the Twenty-First Century. National Academy Press, 364 pp.

——, 2000: From Research to Operations in Weather Sat-ellites and Numerical Weather Prediction: Crossing theValley of Death. National Academy Press, 96 pp.

O’Harrow, R., Jr., 2000: Academic research under themicroscope. Washington Post National Weekly, 21August, A1. [Available online at http://home.cwru.edu/activism/READ/WP080400.html.]

Pielke, R. A., Jr., cited 2000: Six heretical notions aboutweather policy. WeatherZine, 21, April. [Availableonline at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/zine/ar-chives/1-29/21/editorial.html.]

——, and R. Byerly Jr., 1998: Beyond basic and applied.Phys. Today, 51 (2), 42–46.

——, and R. Carbone, 2002: Weather forecasts, impactsand policy: An integrated perspective. Bull. Amer.Meteor. Soc., 83, 393–403.

——, and Coauthors, 1997: Societal aspects of weather:Report of the Sixth Prospectus Development Teamof the U.S. Weather Research Program to NOAA andNSF. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 867–876.

Press, E., and J. Washburn, 2000: The kept university.Atlantic Monthly, 285, March, 39–54.

meeting ummary - center for science and...

Documents