Science Staff Meeting
Minutes from July 12, 2004
At 3:30 p.m. Boardroom
Agenda:
“An Exciting Star” Nolan Walborn (5 minutes)
SD Update Antonella Nota (10 minutes)
Director's Corner
-Cycle 14 Steve Beckwith (15 minutes)
SCWG Corner Stefano Casertano (10 minutes)
This Year’s Science Evaluation Process Keith Noll & Antonella Nota (30 minutes)
SAR Update Brad Whitmore (20 minutes)
Science Highlights:
A presentation by Nolan Walborn on “An Exciting Star”.
SD Update (see presentation by Antonella Nota – pdf file):
Congratulations to:
- Adam Riess and Roeland van der Marel for obtaining tenure
- Melissa McGrath for her promotion to Full Astronomer
- Anand Sivarakrishnan, who is leading the Coronagraph Design section of the proposal submitted by the NSF Center for Adaptive Optics Team -PI Bruce Macintosh- for the Gemini Extreme Adaptive Optics Coronagraph. This proposal was recently successfully selected.
The next ST/JHU Jamboree will be held on October 1, 2004. Massimo Robberto will be this year’s coordinator.
A volunteer committee has been formed for the Caroline Herschel Visitor Program. A poster has been designed and the program will be advertised in the AAS Newsletter. The program will also be presented at the next AAS meeting. The committee members are:
- Antonella Nota (Chair)
- Inga Kamp
- Eva Villaver
- Brad Whitmore
Please send your nominations to Antonella Nota () by August 30th.
Committees for 2004-2005:
- Colloquium Series - Tom Brown (Chair) and Alessandra Aloisi (co-Chair).
- JHU Liaison - Daniela Calzetti and Massimo Robberto.
- Mentoring Program - Margaret Meixner (Chair) and Bob Williams (co-Chair).
- Honors & Awards
Mario Livio (Chair)
Margaret Meixner
Adam Riess
Peter Stockman
Nolan Walborn
Brad Whitmore
- Science Evaluation Committee
Keith Noll (Chair)
Howard Bond
Braham Mobasher
Mike Regan
Rachel Somerville
- Research Support Advisory Committee (RSAC)
Knox Long (Chair)
Howard Bond
Roelof De Jong
Don Figer
Steve Lubow
Margaret Meixner
James Rhoads
Ken Sembach
Rachel Somerville
Massimo Stiavelli
Brad Whitmore
Thanks to Keith Noll, who is rotating off.
- Science Personnel Committee (SPC)
B. Williams (Chair)
Carol Christian
Andy Fruchter
Bob Hanisch
Tony Keyes
Claus Leitherer
Margaret Meixner
Colin Norman
Adam Riess
Massimo Robberto
Massimo Stiavelli
Rick White
Thanks to Ron Gilliland, Dave Soderblom, who are rotating off.
- Science Computing Working Group (SCWG)
Stefano Casertano (Chair)
Andy Fruchter
Mike Regan
Frank Summers
Sarah Stevens-Rayburn
Ben Sugerman (post-doc representative)
Thanks to Massimo Stiavelli who is rotating off.
Director’s Corner -- Cycle 14 (presentation by Steve Beckwith):
-HST Science Plan
- Anne Kinney Letter of May 10, 2004
- Solicitation of Science Programs with reduced HST operability
- Assure most critical programs are completed
- Prioritize HST science
-Solicited Ideas and Input From:
- Cycle 13 TAC/Panels
- STUC and STIC
-Optimizing Science Programs
- Educating user community
o November 17-18, 2004 Technical Workshop with Special 2-Gryo Clinic to inform users.
- Call for Proposals
- TAC
o Ranks programs by 3 and 2 gyros status – over selects rank list
-Ensure Best Science by 2007
- Augment TAC with members that serve on other great observatory TACs.
- Adapt approach to schedule 3 –gyro science
- Adapt approach to schedule after obtaining 2-gryo mode
Science Computing Working Group (see presentation by Stefano Casertano – pdf file):
-Email transition completed.
-Info from CPT with regards to ongoing schedule:
Tech Update Lunch on 7/15 at 12:00 Noon
-How can technology help science?
May be a window of opportunity for new technology ideas to improve science/research at STScI. Send suggestions to Stefano ().
This Year’s Science Evaluation Process (presentation by Keith Noll):
Two handouts were distributed during the meeting – one regarding the process and the other with the template.
Evaluation period – July 1, 2003 – June 30, 2004.
Evaluations are due by August 16, 2004.
What are we trying to measure?
Science activity broadly defined to have the potential to enhance the scientific stature of the individual in the community and at STScI.
Comments: The standard input has no section for commentary within template, could a separate section be put in for that?
Essay section – What you consider important and has impacted your field.
Instructions: Send to Patty Reeves a Word, PDF or plain text file. 12 point, reasonable margins. Essay only 2 pages, nothing more.
On line #1 list contractual science percentage (include any buyback). SD can provide number if needed.
A.I. (Nota/Reeves) Get numbers from HR on sabbatical time for this past year.
SVWB: Missing instrumentation building from list.
K. Noll will add to template.
D. Soderblom: What hours spent on Science/Functional time?
K. Noll: No, not what’s listed on your timecards. What is your contractual %.
J. Valenti: List nominal time not actual time.
B. Brown: Agree with SVWB for instruments. Number 5 deals with proposals submitted only new proposals or contract or grant support?
M. Regan: Looking for science not $ amounts.
SVWB: Future potential or evaluate achieved results, is what Bob is asking.
K. Noll: Trying to measure activity for the previous year. No funding, just papers prepared or produced with the money awarded or the conferences you attended with funding. Results of proposals, you don’t have to include failed proposals.
B. Brown: To whom does this apply to (the evaluation process)?
K. Noll: Both AURA and ESA science staff.
A. Nota: ESA staff receive no $ value from the process, but they are strongly encouraged to submit materials.
B. Hanisch: Would like to see more structured feedback or information back to individuals other than just one-liners.
K. Noll: Feedback should be specific. Middle bin people are doing okay not much more to say within that group.
B. Hanisch: Is there a way to get quantitative results back? Like distribution of scores? Or how score/ranking by committee?
D. Soderblom: Research/function/service, based on SPC promotion process, is a separate process.
A. Nota: Functional service and science service are two different things.
How does the majority feel about the comments?
B. Hanisch: Not useful comments.
M. Regan: Like TAC, should include weaknesses. Would want to know why you were not in top 10.
M. Giavalisco: Feedback for those who need more. They could just ask.
N. Walborn: Some would want it, some don’t. Some don’t want to get involved. With comments you are getting someone’s opinion.
B. Brown: Go along with Nolan. It would be impossible to get committee with comments clean and simple.
D. Soderblom: Definitely comments on people in lowest bin.
K. Noll: Lead reviewer and secondary to take detailed notes of discussion. So there will be some memory of process in the form of raw materials/comments. The info will be there. Will say something for the lowest bin within comments.
A. Nota: A show of hands – lowest bin comments and others upon request.
In favor = majority
Oppose = a couple of hands
D. Soderblom: Agreed with 1 page essay
A. Nota: A show of hands – limit of essay to 1 to 2 pages?
In favor = majority
Oppose = a couple of hands
N. Walborn: Opposed. 1 page should be a target. Also, would like to see one change under Meeting and workshops. Change to list of meeting and workshops you have attended in the last year and include your involvement.
J. Valenti: You could list those talks under the list of contributing talks.
B. Brown: Would like #9 to be clarified.
A. Nota: An example of what #9 is looking for would be those people being asked to help with the Bahcall Report.
Please forward any additional questions to Keith Noll.
If you have a problem with the due date, please contact Keith Noll and/or Antonella Nota.
SAR Update (see presentation by Brad Whitmore – pdf file):
Brad handed out a copy of the scratch sheet (viewgraph #4 in the presentation).
Core SAR Members:
Stefano Casertano
Harry Ferguson
Bob Hanisch
Steve Lubow
ST will stop producing paper preprints, but SD does offer support with posting papers to Astro-Ph.
A.I. (Nota): Send email pointing out that Astro-Ph support is available.
SVWB: Are other organizations doing away with paper preprints?
A. Nota: Yes, we are one of a few still doing paper preprints.
S. Stevens-Rayburn: Not dead but yes the number is going down.
SVWB: SAR has been a valuable resource, many times need good science input – has been great. Don’t think we have to solicit for more SAR work.
B. Whitmore: We do have enough work, but want to make sure we ask if there’s anything we should be doing. Can prioritize if list is too long.