So, even if we could pursue interdisciplinary research, here are some problems, given the structure that we have today:

1) except for interdisciplinary studies under COGS, the Deans / Department will try to take credit for any interdisciplinary graduate the faculty produce. The ‘home field’ for the participating grad student and faculty advisor has to be resolved as an issue.
2) unless we pool resources such as bringing in matching GRA funds, having seed money for one GRA will not make an impact or be significant by any means.

3) I suggest we start a Google Group page to post our interdisciplinary research interests and accomplishments.

Otherwise, we will be posting comments for a long time with limite participation. There is strength in numbers and teaming. Having a blog is a linear process and does not necessarily build community online.

1) natural resources: land, water, minerals etc.
2) resource consumption: energy-derived from land, water, air, minerals. this includes the entire technology ‘cycle’ of energy usage
3) socio-politico-economic: self evident

Also common to all are the following fundamental metrics:
1) number-scales: things that you can ‘count’
2) time-scales: things that you can ‘clock’
3) distributions: a location metric
4) two key derived metrics: time rate change in number scales that gives the derivative; product of number scales with time that gives the integrative measure.

As for decisions, decision are always a ‘hybrid’ of many factors such as the following:
1) deterministic: binary, stochastic, risk-informed, Bayesian, majority, probabilistic etc.
2) epistemci and aleatory

I fear that unless you look at the big picture and as a system, we will not get very far.

I am just submitting a proposal on systems analysis of many of the issues under this nexus.

(John K. McIver to Jay O’Laughlin, Jan. 29, 2010) I have no problem with renaming the area. Your comments are both good and relevant particularly with respect to thinking of energy as a system. If truth be told, I think of the nexus as a system. This should be part of the discussion and could be a recommendation that comes out of the meeting. Ultimately we are going to have to chose a particular aspect since it is impossible for any university to claim excellence in the broader area.

(Jay O’Laughlin to John Tracy, Jan. 29, 2010) In my opinion this theme is too narrowly drawn and should be retitled “Nexus of energy systems, land use and the environment.” While I am not disputing that agriculture is a major land use and economic engine in Idaho, so are forests and rangelands. Through my role as a task force leader for the Idaho Strategic Energy Alliance, I have come to think of energy as a system, rather than a product, and I suggest we adopt that way of thinking.

I regret that I will be out of town when the discussion group meets, giving an invited presentation to a tri-state meeting of the Society of American Forests at Auburn University on “Ethics Regarding Carbon Credits.” Discussions of energy systems need to include carbon management and this should be a major part of this group’s focus, through life cycle analysis, economics and policy analysis, among other disciplinary approaches.

The forestry sector embraced sustainability in the mid-1990s, and most of the private timberlands in Idaho have been certified as meeting internationally accepted standards. There is a large potential for all of the state’s timberlands to contribute to a different energy future and to help capture and store atmospheric carbon.

I look forward to participating as the group moves ahead and beyond a too-narrowly drawn focus on agricultural land use.

Although I was only able to tuen in for about 30-45 minutes from Idaho Falls, here is what I observed in random order as I remember them.

1) with any ‘nexus’ of multiple disciplines, we need someone with system analysis expertise or interest. There is an INL CAES group that I work with that does cross-issues systems analysis
2) we cannot make progress if we worry about the ordering of words in the strategic research theme
3) we also cannot make progress if we promote specific sub-domain disciplines such as food safety
4) we need a process by which faculty who engage in interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research (substantiated) step forward. I suggest posting CVs on a Website and for interested faculty to ‘rate’ the 1-10 degree of interdisciplinary-ness of say, publications and thesis titles
5) UI like most universities are classified across colleges and departments; it is not made for interdisciplinary research except per initiative of faculty members
6) we need a one or more buildings where faculty rotate setting up office for a semester or academic year where initiating interdisciplinary research is a required deliverable
7) we need an online poster forum (powerpoint with audioclip) on what interdisciplinary research we are interested in; that is, we need a ‘classified’ add that says, “male mechanical engineering researcher looking for female interested in biometrics” (just kidding but serious).

More later.

Akira Tokuhiro
PS As an undergrad at Purdue, I made my own curriculum that was approved by a faculty committee under Interdisciplinary Engineering. Purdue has had IDE for many years. Is there such an option at UI?