US Panel Nixes Astronomy Move

Astronomers in the US gave a collective sigh of relief when a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel rejected a proposal outlined in President Bush’s 2002 budget to move ground-based telescopes from NSF’s to NASA’s auspices. Nor were NASA officials disappointed by the outcome: “The proposal came as a total surprise,” says Edward Weiler, the agency’s associate administrator for space science. The NAS panel did, however, shine the spotlight on some weaknesses of NSF’s stewardship, and recommended in a report that the foundation create its own long-term strategy for astronomy, improve the management of existing projects, and consider competitive bidding for building new facilities.

Both financial pressure and concerns about the future of US astronomy spurred the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discreetly arrange for NSF and NASA to call for the NAS study this past spring. But the 11-member panel, headed by Norman R. Augustine, a former CEO for Lockheed Martin now at Princeton University, nixed the proposed move to NASA. The panel, dominated by university astronomers, concluded that giving NASA oversight of US ground-based observatories would cause so much upheaval that it would “seriously weaken the intellectual roots of the discipline.” The panel cited the advantages of having astronomy in an agency closely tied to the academic research community. But it also pointed out that NSF will have to negotiate with private institutions and form more international partnerships to afford the next generation of large instruments.

Ground-based astronomy at NSF faces many problems: a stagnant budget, a lack of political support for future projects, NASA’s growing influence over astronomy, and demands by independent facilities such as the Keck Observatory for new NSF-funded instruments. These problems are all intertwined in a complex relationship, explains William Smith, president of the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, which manages the national optical observatories for NSF. NASA and NSF together fund about 90% of all US astronomical research, but NSF’s share has dropped from 60% to 30% over the past decade. The rest of the funding is from private sources and universities. And NASA now funds nearly three-quarters of individual research grants in astronomy.

In evaluating whether ground-based astronomy should remain at NSF or be clumped with NASA, the NAS panel solicited comments from hundreds of astronomers. In addition to providing opinions on the NSF move, astronomers complained about the lack of support for research areas that overlap the two agencies, such as balloon-based observations. Many cited a slow erosion of the US lead in astronomy. “For the last 30 to 40 years, the US has dominated optical astronomy,” says Riccardo Giacconi, president of Associated Universities Inc in Washington, DC (which operates the National Radio Astronomy Observatory) and former director-general of the European Southern Observatory. “Now there is strong competition from Europe and Japan.”

“Several staff members in the executive branch and in Congress conveyed to the [panel] their perception that NSF does not manage large projects well,” says the NAS panel, but “we did not find evidence” that NSF had “significantly more” management problems than other federal agencies. Their report suggests that NSF develop a more comprehensive accounting system for each project and improve its communication with Congress, the White House, and the public. “NSF can do a better job of bringing science to the public,” agrees Weiler. “NASA has, and I am quite proud of that. If you don’t get that science translated into a form that real Americans can understand, you are not doing the job of a federal agency.”

But astronomy’s biggest problem is funding. “By a substantial margin, the NSF does not have the resources to keep US ground-based optical and infrared astronomy at the world level,” the panel’s report says. The only solution, it continues, is to develop “systematic, comprehensive, and coordinated planning” between the agencies and private facilities through a highlevel joint advisory committee run by the OMB and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

This suggestion is controversial and many astronomers doubt that the new advisory committee would be successful. “The National Academy does an outstanding job in setting priorities for astronomy,” says Weiler, “and clearly identifies areas for NASA’s and NSF’s attention. Personally, I do not support yet another advisory group.” Smith believes that such a committee will face a daunting challenge in matching the different agencies’ priorities and cultures in a “scientifically productive” manner. In any case, the community must find a way to get past its differences and unite on the national level, says Giacconi. “We must develop a United States of Astronomy.”