V1, 7/18/05 19 leverage future funding for the program. They do not serve as an official “blessing” or “condemnation” of the directions of the project or the team. There has been much to praise the SEACOOS team for in the conduct of this project, particularly in light of the evolving nature of the IOOS program, the RA concept, GEOSS plans and the sponsor’s changing role. The committee recognizes and commends the extensive amount of effort that has been undertaken in executing the project. This report however is not focused on providing accolades, but is aimed at exposing and examining the “flaws” in the system, with the intent to provide guidance for their correction. We consider SEACOOS to be a research program providing a possible prototype for the transitioning to an operational program. Our review is to be considered as a Mission review (or in NASA terms, phase A of a mission review) which determines the readiness of a system to go into the next phase or operation. SEACOOS must demonstrate that it has a vision for transitioning to the future in the form of Prototype development plans and guidance documents. In its original charge, the committee was asked to review the science and the impact of the science.  It was also explicitly asked to review the new governance mechanisms that have been put in place for transparency, equity and accountability. During the course of this review, it became increasingly obvious that the information provided was not sufficient to review the “science”. In fact, the proposal to ONR was more of a technology development project which, when in place will underpin and enable the data acquisition necessary to answer the science questions. Thus the committee believes that to judge or bless the science that has been done as the systems were being “fused” is not possible during this review. The pressing scientific issues (cross shelf transports, atmospheric impact on surface and bottom circulations, connections between estuaries and the open ocean, sea level change, coastal circulation etc.) which will further the “understanding” of the system have not been uniformly articulated to this review committee. Emphasis was placed on the development of a “networked” system and thus the review focuses on this aspect. Because the funding for the program has been received via a congressional appropriation or “earmark”, it was important to the committee that the expectations of congress as expressed in the multitude of testimony presented in defense of the funding (i.e. Mrs. Dole’s testimony) be taken into consideration.  The reason that this is important is that in the formal proposal itself, there is much less “societal good” promised than in the “expectations” of congress as recorded in the public record.  In pursuing this funding route, which is today an accepted practice, there is an additional responsibility conveyed to the project- that of being able to withstand public scrutiny.  Thus, the committee has put significant emphasis on the “relevance” of this project to the fulfilling the needs of the nation. In addition, because this may be considered as one of the first significantly funded programs of the IOOS, and because it is touted as being a role model for the development of programs in other areas of the country, the committee paid a considerable amount of detail to the “process”, that is, the way that priorities are set, that systems are designed,