Comments on Research Networks from Dialog 2004
Notes by David Levermore

• There was general support for finding a place for something like this within the DMS funding structure, but it was clear that many concerns had to be addressed first.
• Networks were viewed as a good way to enhance the sense of community among those working in a research area, especially with regards to the mentoring of junior researchers.
• Networks could make some travel funds available to deserving researchers without individual grants.
• Networks were viewed as a way modest NSF funding could reach researchers from a broader cross-section of the community --- for example, by funding a postdoc to work with a researcher at a four-year college.
• Networks seem to be larger, more accessible, and more flexible than FRGs, but the boundary between them needs to be defined.
• Networks were viewed as possibly being particularly helpful to those engaged in mid-career revivals.
• Some felt networks would be more suitable for core areas than applied areas, while others said the opposite.
• It was suggested that Institutes could serve as administrative centers for networks, as well as a place for them to meet. The MSRI network is a step in this direction.
• By funding meetings through topical networks rather than institutes, it might help reduce redundancy in programs run by institutes, thereby spreading funds more equitably around the mathematical community.
• The Southwest Center Winter School seemed to achieve a high impact per dollar spent. This was viewed as evidence that similar network activities could be similarly successful.
• Many examples of networks exist internationally (Europe, Japan, Germany, Canada, ...). We can learn from the successful aspects of these.
• Networks might naturally facilitate affiliations with foreign networks.