A blue-ribbon group has advised NASA that the International Space Station (ISS), without enhancements, lacks research capacity and cannot facilitate the sophisticated science as promised. If the costly orbiting outpost is not beefed up with more gear and staffed with dedicated researchers, the study group reported today, NASA should not claim the ISS is a "science driven" program.

Called the Research Maximization and Prioritization Task Force, or ReMaP, the 20-person advisory group took an independent look at the research productivity and priorities for NASA's Office of Biological and Physical Research (OBPR).

A major focus of ReMaP was how to exploit scientific research onboard the International Space Station.

U.S. Core Complete is not an acceptable phase to place a stop-work order on building the ISS, in terms of its ability for carrying out scientific research. "If this analysis is correct, then we have serious problems," said ReMaP's chair, Rae Silver, professor of Natural and Physical Sciences at Columbia University.

The group has recommended tagging a specific person on the ISS as a "science officer".

An ISS science officer is an immediate need, critical to maximizing what research tools are orbiting presently, Silver said. "We would like to see more time devoted to doing scientific research on the space stationmore than 20 hours a week. This is a problem that NASA can work on," she added.

One major prod from ReMaP was underscoring an early need for an ISS centrifuge. Work on that hardware, to be provided by Japan's National Space Development Agency (NASDA), has put engineers in their own spin. The device has proven difficult to build. Concern has also been raised that the spinning machinery will violate ISS microgravity requirements.

The Task Force "encourages expedited development of the centrifuge," and noted that engineering aspects of the centrifuge appear to be largely resolved.

The ISS logistics and budget problems are NASA's, and not assessed by the Task Force, said David Shirley, Director Emeritus of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California, and served as ReMaP's Vice-Chair.

ReMaP was intended to prioritize the science to be done on ISS, Shirley said, and the group assembled a lengthy laundry list of ISS research tasks.

Receiving first priority were studies in clinical and operational medicine, behavior and performance, and radiation health. Advanced life support, physiology, cell and molecular biology, and looks into phase transformation [transitions] of physical processes received top slots too.

However, picking one scientific pursuit over another is a tough assignment, admitted Shirley.

"First of all, nature does not know the difference between biology and physical sciences. It just all nature," Shirley said. "Processes that occur in microgravity cut across all the disciplines, he added.

"We think it would be artificial to emphasize one area of science at the price of another," Shirley said. "We can do a lot of good science with core complete. To do all the good science that the Task Force thinks we should do, we have to go beyond core complete," he said.

Is it too late in the game to be stuffing science into the International Space Station?

Shirley told SPACE.com that in a very large scientific and engineering endeavor, the first step is nearly always to build the facility.

"During that first phase you have designers, engineers, and constructors at the helm. After that, when it is built and in the later stages of building, scientists have to take over. There is always a transition period that can be difficult. The role of ReMaP is to help move the space station in that direction by addressing scientific prioritiesto look at the science in the absence of such things as logistics and budget," Shirley said.

As chair of the ReMaP Task Force, Silver said she was impressed with the "patience and perseverance" of the scientific community.