CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE GEOSCIENCES: A SCIENCE AGENCY VIEWPOINT

Is cyberinfrastructure a “buzz-concept” or will it actually make a difference in the geosciences? Recently someone asked me this question and suggested that too much had been made of what would be enabled with cyberinfrastructure. While overstating the importance of an activity is common in science, I think that it is not the case with cyberinfrastructure. Concern for the revitalization of high-end computing, for the percentage of observing system costs devoted to data management and data architecture, and for investment in physical networks characterize the dialogues among science agencies and between those agencies and Congress. It is now well understood that this cyberinfrastructure is as important to the advancement of science as is the physical infrastructure of laboratories, observatories and analytical equipment. I believe that the biggest challenge in providing cyberinfrastructure for science will not be seen in large science projects where cyberinfrastructure costs are built into the budget, but in medium to small size projects that need access to substantial assets that would dwarf their budgets. This implies first, that cyberinfrastructure associated with big projects must be carefully designed to benefit the community as a whole. Second, it implies the need for investment in community projects that provide resources that will be available to all researchers. A major challenge for the coming years will be the identification and prioritization of cyberinfrastructure needs that can be developed in a way that leverages resources from multiple agencies and benefits large segments of the community.