Content uploaded by Kendra Daly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kendra Daly on Feb 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Eos,
Vol.
81,
No.
48,
November
28,2000
obstacles to
overcome.
Specific
problems identi-
fied
by the group were 1) lack of
author
recog-
nition in the scientific community by peer
reviewers
and
editors;
2)
the
relatively
high cost
of
publishing in Western scientific journals and
obtaining reprints; and 3) the fact
that
many sci-
entific
researchers
from
Francophone
African
countries have technical difficulties writing in
English,
a main language for publishing in the
geosciences.
To
increase their recognition among scientific
peers and editors in the United States, the break-
out group participants agreed
that
it is absolutely
necessary
for
West
African
atmospheric scientists
to
present their research at appropriate national
and international
meetings,
such
as those spon-
sored by the
American
Geophysical Union and
the
American
Meteorological
Society
even
though it is
very
costly for them to attend.
Regarding
high publication costs, the
participants noted
that
there are numerous
journals in the atmospheric sciences
that
do
not charge page fees and
that
provide a num-
ber of reprints
free
of
charge.
The
participants
also noted
that
there are other scientific jour-
nals
that
will
drop or reduce page charges for
camera-ready manuscripts.The group
resolved
to draw up a list of
such
journals and
make it available to
African
atmospheric sci-
entists
on the
Web
site of either Howard
Uni-
versity
or Pennsylvania State University
To
assist
Francophone scientists
from
West
Africa
with technical writing in English, the
breakout group proposed the
following:
•
Establishing a network of
US.
scientists
who,
through the Internet and the
mail,
can help their
African
counterparts with editing and
reviewing
manuscripts
prior to their submission.
•
Ensuring
that
African
scientists have
access to graphics and other software
that
can be used at all stages of manuscript
devel-
opment.
The
participants noted
that
there are
numerous "freeware" packages in these cate-
gories,
and
that
it may be possible to work out
agreements with the
University
Cooperation for
Atmospheric
Sciences
(UCAR)
to obtain
software
packages
such
as
NCAR
graphics at a
reduced cost
for
West
African
universities.
•
Sponsoring technical writing workshops to
which
Francophone
African
scientists could
bring
actual
manuscripts, to improve their
technical writing skills in English.
Attendance at Conferences
The
other main
difficulty
identified was the
problem
West
African
atmospheric scientists
encounter in presenting their research
findings
at scientific conferences, especially
ones held in the United States.
As
the partici-
pants
noted,
this
is related largely to the high
cost of international travel, and costs associat-
ed
with registration and
lodging.
The
participants acknowledged
that
there
are no simple solutions, but they also agreed
that
the importance of attending conferences
is so great
that
creative,
sustained
efforts to
help defray these costs are
imperative.
Partial
solutions proposed included determining
whether
full
or partial funding is available
from
U.S.
professional societies for scientists
from
developing countries for attendance at
individual
conferences; and developing pro-
posals for travel
grants
to
U.S.
federal agencies
and/or private foundations for scientists pre-
senting scholarly research at national
meetings in the United States.
The
general opinion of the breakout group
was
that
many members of the atmospheric
sciences community, and in the United States
specifically,
were
unaware of the
current
diffi-
culties
that
West
African
scientists face in
disseminating their research to the larger
community.
An
identified solution was for
U.S.
scientists to publish articles and make
presentations at various scientific meetings to
"publicize"
the existence of these problems.
Finally,
the group concurred
that
an interdis-
ciplinary
geosciences organization similar to
AGU
should be formed in
Africa
which would
host meetings similar to the bi-annual
AGU
and
annual
AMS
meetings.
These
types of
meetings in
Africa
could bring together scien-
tists
from
various disciplines and continents,
increasing
Africa's
involvement in global scien-
tific
research.
NOTE:
A
meeting of the Society of
African
Meteorologists
(SMA)
will
be held in 2001
(exact
date and site to be announced.) It is
hoped
that
more
U.S.
and European scientists
will
attend to make presentations and meet
their
African
counterparts, thereby increasing
collaboration
between Western and
African
atmospheric scientists.
Acknowledgments
The
workshop on climate change research
in
West
Africa
was funded by the Interna-
tional and Atmospheric Sciences programs
of
the
U.S.
National Science Foundation.
It
was hosted by faculty
from
the Depart-
ment of
Meteorology
of Pennsylvania State
University,
and
from
the Center for the
Study of Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial
Atmospheres
and the graduate program
in atmospheric sciences of Howard
University
in Washington,
D.C.
Authors
Gregory
S.
Jenkins,
Department of
Meteorology
Pennsylvania State
University University
Park,
USA
Aida
Diongue,
Centre National de Recherches
Meteorologiques,
Toulouse,
France
Meeting
Explores Sensor
Technology
for
Remote,
Interactive
Aquatic
Experiments
PAGE
580
Oceans,
lakes,
rivers,
and groundwater are
complex,
dynamic environments in which
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
processes
occur
over
varying temporal and spatial scales
(e.g.,eddies,
nutrient
fluxes,
patchiness of
organisms,benthic processes,and
pollution).
In
addition,
deep,
remote,
or hostile systems
such
as hydrothermal vents and polar regions tradi-
tionally
are poorly sampled, but are important
to
understanding global biogeochemical and
hydrological
cycles.
In the coming decades,
moored,
cabled,
and autonomous observatories
will
be used to investigate a spectrum of basic
processes in aquatic environments.
In
anticipation of the need to
develop
or re-
engineer
sensors to measure physical, chemi-
cal,
biological,
and
geological
processes in
situ,
a one-day workshop and special session
on
sensor technology was held during the
June
2000 meeting of the
American
Society
of
Limnology
and Oceanography
(ASLO)
in
Copenhagen,
Denmark.The
goal
of the work-
shop was to exchange ideas on new experi-
mental approaches and
methodology,
to
define
strategic themes, and to formulate
specific
recommendations related to sensor
development.
The
25 participants
from
North
America
and Europe represented academic
and industry sensor developers and
users,
as
well
as a broad spectrum of scientific interests.
Reported
here are the recommendations
resulting
from
that
meeting in hope
that
they
will
be useful as a catalyst for further
develop-
ment of sensor systems.
There
was consensus among the workshop
participants
that
development and validation
of
chemical and
biological
sensors were
urgently needed.
Lack
of inexpensive and
reli-
able sensors generally limits chemical and
biological
observations. For
example,
3000
profiling
floats
will
be deployed as
part
of the
internationally supported
Argo
Program
(http://www.argo.ucsd.edu)
to monitor global
changes in ocean temperature and salinity as
part
of a climate observing system.The inabil-
ity
of biogeochemists to utilize these floats
was
perceived as a tremendous missed
opportunity to link physical, chemical, and
biological
processes to climate variability
Fostering Information Exchange
Our community needs to
ensure
that
develop-
ment and use of sensors
will
progress more
effi-
ciently
The
primary recommendation was
that
workshops
involving
scientists,
engineers,
and
technologists
were
essential to foster information
exchange
and to provide advice on community
priorities for sensor
development.
More
than
one
workshop
would be warranted because of the
specialized
needs of different
habitats
and the
varying
research focus of different scientific
programs.A
coordinating committee could be
beneficial
for tracking the common themes
among these groups and finalizing cross-cutting
recommendations in a document for funding
agencies,sensor
developers,
and
user
groups.
There
also was a consensus
that
some
areas
of
sensor development and use required
Eos,
Vol.
81,
No.
48,
November
28,2000
community agreement
(e.g.,
hardware and
software
compatibility issues, precision issues,
calibration standards) and
that
other
areas
needed strong encouragement for continued
development
(e.g.,0
2
sensors, profiling moor-
ings).
Additional
suggestions to enable infor-
mation exchange included establishing a
network for sensor developers and
users,
holding
a Gordon Conference on cross-tech-
nology
issues, and establishing training
grants
for
users
and technologists.
New
Types of Sensors
The
first working group recommended the
following
criteria to prioritize the chemical
and
biological
sensors
needed to
address
fun-
damental science questions during the next
decade:
sensors
that
are now operational, but
could
be better utilized; individual
sensors
or
a
suite
of
sensors
that
require additional
devel-
opment;
sensors
that
need to be developed.
Some
sensors
(e.g.,pC0
2
,pH,
nitrate,fluorome-
ters,and
spectral radiometers) are currently
operational on moorings, but long
deployments may be limited by biofouling.
Biofouling
came up repeatedly as a problem
that
must
be
resolved.
A
combination of opti-
cal (i.e.,absorption, transmissometers,and
fluo-
rometers),0
2
,and pC0
2
sensors
was
given
as
an example of a
suite
of
sensors
that
would be
useful to
address
a broad array of questions
related to aquatic productivity and
biogeo-
chemical
cycles.
However,
instrumental
drift of
0
2
sensors
in marine systems was a concern.
The
wish list for new
sensors
was as long as
the number of participants. Examples of
chemical
sensors
that
must
be developed
included particulate and dissolved organic
carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; phosphate
and acetate; and
sensors
for speciation of
ele-
ments.
The
need for
robust,
stable
sensors
at
extreme
temperatures
was discussed.
The
development of
sensors
for microbial
activity
also was strongly endorsed. Our
under-
standing
of microbial
ecology
is far behind
all
other biota. Recent developments in micro-
fabrication provide the foundation for
develop-
ing
high-density
arrays
of
biologically
based
detection elements
(e.g.,
nucleic acid,
enzymatic,
or
immunochemical).
For example,
DNA
microarrays could be used to monitor
both
abundance
and
activity-level
variations
among
natural
microbial populations.
Participants noted
that
the accuracy, preci-
sion, and interpretation of sensor
data
must
be improved.They recommended
that
calibra-
tion protocols be developed for all sensors,
especially
in
situ
calibrations;
that
standards
for
calibrations of
sensors
and analyzers be
developed
and maintained; and
that
training
workshops should be encouraged to provide
instruction on the proper use of equipment.
Workshop
participants
noted
that
the
success
of
the global ocean carbon dioxide survey
was made possible by the development of
easily
distributed
standards
for total inorganic
carbon. Interpreting the carbon
data,
however,
has proven problematic,
owing
to the lack of
similar
standards
for
nutrients.
Biological
sensors
have suffered from a lack of rigorous
field
validation and
must
be accorded suffi-
cient funding to complete
this
essential
devel-
opment phase.Too often, biosensor validation
has been done in an ad hoc fashion during
field
research, resulting in a lack of
confidence
in
data
interpretation.
Problems
of Mass Production
The
second working group discussed the
problem
of moving from prototype
sensors
to
mass
production.The example of the
TAO/TRITON
mooring array across the
Tropi-
cal
Pacific
Ocean was used as a focus for the
discussion.
About
70
ATLAS
and
TRITON
moorings,
with physical
sensors
at 11 depths,
telemeter oceanographic and meteorological
data
to shore in real time via the
Argos
satel-
lite
system.The chemical and
biological
oceanography communities
must
develop
strategies to deploy a comparable number of
sensors
in order to achieve a similar synoptic
coverage.
In addition to conceptual hurdles,
sensor development and
mass
production
was
viewed
as being limited by funding, lack
of
a trained workforce (users and repair),
poor
long-term stability and reliability of sen-
sors, and inadequate
follow-up
on calibration
and
data
quality control. It was clear
that
com-
munity acceptance of a sensor technique was
necessary before
mass
production could occur.
Several
directions for broadening the appli-
cation and use of
sensors
were considered.
Sensor designs could be simplified so
that
non-experts can use them.Sacrificing precision
should be evaluated in terms of the process
being
measured and whether it increases
instrument
reliability or reduces the
level
of
expertise needed to maintain the
instrument.
Alternatively,
sensor designs could be made
more
complex,
whereby an intelligent sensor
would
perform the function of the expert
technician. Smart
sensors
also could be
designed to detect
natural
scales of variability
and respond in some preprogrammed way to
collect
data
more intensively during or
near
the phenomenon of interest. Smart
sensors
would
be easier to
transport
to different envi-
ronments
that
operate on different scales of
variability
(e.g.,hydrothermal vents, freshwa-
ter, and sediments).
Dedicated
scientific and engineering centers
were
suggested for intensive development of
certain sensors, and to facilitate the broad use,
validation,
and
mass
production of sensors.
Cooperation
between scientists and
industrial
partners
should be encouraged for the final
development.
Finally,
there
must
be a broad
effort
to inform and
train
users
to interpret
results.
Support groups should be set up to
provide
advice to all
users.
Hardware
and Software Compatability
The
second working group also discussed
problems associated with hardware and soft-
ware
compatibility,
the so-called
Plug-N-Play
issue.
Everyone
agreed
that
this
problem
continued to be a tremendous time- and mon-
ey-consuming
challenge.
The
most
flexible
instrument
drivers utilize
low-level
C program-
ming
language. Investigators wishing to com-
bine observations from multiple
instruments
are forced either to limit their sampling options
to those supported by preprogrammed drivers,
or
to invest significant time and resources into
electronic and software programming them-
selves.
Mutual compatibility is an increasingly
difficult
problem as serial
instruments
are
each programmed and interrogated separate-
ly
This
is a community problem
that
could
benefit
from standardization of power and
communication,
while
recognizing
that
power
requirements and
data
output
rates
vary
among sensors.
One
solution suggested was the use of mas-
ter-slave processors, which would have the
capability of distinguishing three modes of sen-
sor operation: autonomously driving itself,
autonomously driving other sensors, and being
fully
driven by
another
processor.
Another
option
would be to develop an identification
reference
system allowing the
"smart"
central
processor to talk with individual sensors. Cur-
rently,
these
systems are custom-designed and
maintained by only a few hardware and soft-
ware
experts.
One
outcome of
this
workshop
will
be to
establish a sensor network and information
exchange on the
ASLO
Web
site.
The
exchange
will
include an interactive, search-
able directory where individuals and
industry
representatives
will
be able to submit or
update
statements
about their research activi-
ties, interests, and basic contact information.
Other features
will
include links to sensor-
related
Web
sites, and a discussion forum.
We
encourage anyone interested in sensor
technology
to watch the
ASLO
Web
site for
further developments.
Additional
details on the
ASLO
Sensor
Work-
shop and a listing of the
participants
is posted
on the
following
Web
sites: http://vertigo.
rsmas.miami.edu/deos.html and http://www
soc.soton.ac.uk/OED/gxg.We
hope
that
this
report
will
serve to stimulate a continuing
dialogue
on
these
topics and provide a focus
for
future
sensor development.
Acknowledgments
This
report reflects the contributions of
many
people.
I
would like to
thank
my co-
convenors,
Larry Clark,
Gwyn
Griffiths, and
John
Delaney; the working group leaders and
rapporteurs, Ken
Johnson,
David
Stahl,
John
Dunne, and Mary
Jane
Perry; and the work-
shop
participants
for their
enthusiasm
and
thoughtful comments.
Author
Kendra
L.
Daly
Department of Marine Science, University
of
South
Florida,
St.
Petersburg,
USA
