Reviewer Comments - EERE

2011 Algae Platform Review – Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments are direct transcripts of commentary and material provided by the Platform’s
Review Panel. They have not been edited or altered by the Biomass Program.
technology transfer support in the event that transfer is appropriate. We agree that extensive concurrence
between research and commercial entities is crucial for effective risk assessment.
6. Overall Impressions
Please provide an overall evaluation of the project, including strengths, weaknesses, the project
approach, scope, and any other overall comments.
Reviewer Comments
Reviewer: 1
The Program itself is of high priority and relevance. It is a credit that it is being addressed earlier rather
than later. Unfortunately the strategies and tactics are not well-developed in enough detail to allow
appreciation of the importance. The gratuitous use of XANES is counter to the value of the project.
Reviewer: 2
This project has potentially important goals but needs to reconsider work in the context of potential
problems mentioned above.
Reviewer: 3
The entirety of this project appears to be the same as that by Chris Yeager. Is the Algal Biomass Program
funding the same project twice?
Reviewer: 4
See other comments.
Reviewer: 5
The relevance of this project was completely unconvincing. My blunt impression was that this algae
project was designed to support cell toxicity and heavy metal lab groups (rather than the other way
around).
Reviewer: 6
This work is much better placed with the CDC or the Centers for Ocean and Human Health.
Reviewer: 7
Maybe more could be learned from surveying risks in existing systems such as wastewater treatment or
aquaculture, thentyring to define and measure risks for an unknown system.
Presenter Response
Note this section includes references for the other sections.
Please see responses to comments above regarding XANES. We regard the evaluation of this technology
as neither gratuitous nor inappropriate. Please also see comments regarding Approach and Background
from Yeager, as well as comment responses above and comment responses by Yeager et al. The project
by Yeager and Sullivan is one single project. The separation of the project into two presentations appears
to have been a confusing factor for the review panel. We would request that a single presentation be “tag
teamed” in the future. Please also see comment responses by Yeager and Moeller, our Co-PI who is a
member of the NOAA Center for Ocean and Human Health.
Most interactions with growers are expected to be publicly available. However, specific agreements can
be made (e.g. PII, NDAs) to allow appropriate review of future work. The data can be sent to reviewers
Page 175 of 223