Two editorials on Science at the Smithsonian:
The New York Times, Editorial Page www.nytimes.com
December 24, 2001
Science at the Smithsonian
The fate of three outstanding research centers that are part of the Smithsonian Institution remains uncertain as the Bush dministration completes its fiscal year 2003 budget. Under a proposal floated initially by the Office of Management and Budget, the three centers would be removed from the Smithsonian's jurisdiction and transferred to the National Science Foundation, a federal agency that awards grants for scientific research. That possibility has Smithsonian scientists in a tizzy, as well it might. Although Bush administration officials were justifying the move on management grounds, it is not clear that they have thoroughly explored the likely consequences to the research programs or to the Smithsonian itself.
The three facilities at issue are the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, in Cambridge, Mass., which has done world-renowned research on planets in other solar systems and the large-scale structure of the universe; the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, in Panama, which was judged ''undeniably the best'' in the world by a panel of outside experts; and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, on the eastern shore of Maryland, which has conducted valuable studies on nutrient flows in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and on microbial pollution from the ballast water of commercial ships.
What's at stake in the current struggle is a small amount of money in Washington budgetary terms but a symbolically important application of the Bush administration's management philosophy. The administration, quite rightly, has been battling against financing mechanisms that end up creating perpetual entitlements for favored entities without subjecting them to competition or meaningful merit review. The three Smithsonian centers have been receiving some $35 million a year in core support, used mostly for staff salaries and upkeep of buildings. On top of that support, scientists at the three centers have competed for and won some $94 million in research grants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation and other granting agencies, an indication that the research can hold its own in open competition. But the O.M.B., in internal budget negotiations, proposed switching the $35 million in core support to the science foundation as well.
The foundation is a careful steward of the welfare of science and would surely do nothing to harm any high-quality programs. But what's disturbing is that the O.M.B. sought to apply its management approach without first consulting any of the interested parties. No one has thoroughly analyzed whether the facilities play an important role in helping the Smithsonian museums mount their exhibitions or in assisting the Smithsonian's educational outreach efforts. Ironically, the Smithsonian itself has just appointed a panel of distinguished scientists to review all its research efforts and make recommendations on how best to manage them. It would seem foolish to act abruptly before that review is completed next year.
This matter is eerily reminiscent of an episode last year when the O.M.B. raised the possibility of switching all astronomy programs that are now financed by the National Science Foundation to NASA. That idea lost steam after the National Academy of Sciences suggested that there was a sharp line of demarcation worth preserving, with NASA supporting astronomy from space, the realm it knows best, and the science foundation financing ground-based astronomy, the realm it knows best. So this year the O.M.B. sought to reverse course and shove more astronomy programs into the science foundation.
No final decisions have been made, and the Office of Management and Budget may still change course. Whatever happens administratively, it will be crucial to maintain the excellence of all three Smithsonian facilities. There is no point in disrupting three outstanding research institutes without taking extreme care to make sure that any proposed transfer really makes sense - and is done smoothly.
The Washington Post:
courtesy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32740-2001Dec27.html
A Hole in Downtown
THIS CITY just can't seem to catch a break as it struggles to limit the damage of Sept. 11. First there were street closings and the cancelation of familiar tourist favorites like the open house to view the White House Christmas decorations. Now comes a longer-term threat to downtown, one lacking the security rationale of those other moves. The Office of Management and Budget proposes postponing a Smithsonian Institution renovation of the Old Patent Office Building, delaying and perhaps derailing an ambitious downtown development plan that was to be anchored by two refurbished museums -- the National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian Museum of American Art -- slated to reopen in 2005.
OMB's hard line reflects understandable concern about the many new demands on this year's budget. But cutting deeply at the Smithsonian always carries risks of wider damage. Repeated postponement of needed refurbishings to the museums has produced, as Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small has pointed out, a billion-dollar backlog of needed spending just to bring the institution's physical plant to a tolerable level. The proposed budget would also gut Smithsonian research, de-funding, for example, the very entities -- a noted Chesapeake Bay research station, the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory -- that Secretary Small earlier this year cited as the parts of the Smithsonian research enterprise most worthy of strengthening. It's shortsighted for OMB to insist on such cuts when the Smithsonian, beyond its own worth, can be one of the prime catalysts the District and the region so desperately need.
***
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
