No abstract

ABSTRACT/ Large-scale environmental research efforts are conducted under frameworks that provide a common basis for evaluating research in many diverse fields. Such frameworks should be subjected to critical review to determine if they meet crucial expectations. In the case of the US Global Change Research Program, we perceive that most research follows a framework that we define as the predictive model framework. We believe this framework is insufficient for resolving the unprecedented predicaments posed by global change. We recommend a complementary framework, the system response framework, which directs research toward useful indicators of change rather than precise predictions. We further argue that, even if research is complementary and effective under the two frameworks, conclusive results prior to decisions should not be expected. The burden of proof must itself be a continuing topic of open discourse and inquiry.Public support for applied research is intended to provide a scientific basis for public policy (Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences 1992). There is an implicit social contract: public funds support comprehensive research programs in return for research efforts that address matters of public importance. Toward this end, funds are directed toward some research activities more than others. This selectivity is based on what we define in this paper as a framework of assumptions and expectations. A research framework defines the overall rationale for a comprehensive research program. Expressed in program objectives, purpose statements, and overviews, a framework serves to mediate between public policy and a vast array of specialized research activities. It provides an overall rationale for public support of a wide range of research efforts.A framework focuses scientific inquiry so that proposals, assumptions, and claims are tested for practical public purpose as well as scientific credibility. At the same time, a framework establishes the scientific