I've had some interest in space politics for quite some time. An excellent source can be found at www.spacepolitics.com. Jeff Foust is a graduate of MIT in Planetary Science and is now employed at the Futron Corporation. In addition to spacepolitics.com, he runs the Space Review, a free online space policy newsletter.
For those of you that don't know, Arecibo Observatory has been identified in the Senior Review as a target of the budgetary axe. Its operating budget of 10.5 million dollars will be reduced to 8 million for FY 2007, with a further reduction to 4 million in 2011. Funding of 4 million per year is actually contingent on matching funds secured from non-NSF sources.
There are other complicating factors: 5 million for paint loaned by Cornell to NSF, which NSF will repay over the next few years; 1 million that is dedicated to the radar program; new instrument upgrades; appeals for international funding; the consultation (if any) between NSF-AST and NSF-ATM, the latter of which contributes some funding to Arecibo; China's desire to build an Arecibo+active surface observatory.... I will edit this post later with more specific budgetary information.
The key question is the following: what options are available for Cornell/NAIC to fight the Senior Review recommendation? I have identified the following:
1. Stop the Senior Review from becoming NSF policy
Cornell/NAIC is attempting this as I write. They sent a document criticizing inconsistencies in mandate and factual information in the Senior Review to Wayne Van Citters, the head of NSF's Astronomy Division. In addition to incorrectly claiming that surveys would be done by 2011 (the actual date is closer to 2015), the Senior Review exceeded its mandate (identify $30 million in assets that might be reallocated) by making specific recommendations for facility closure. One reason why the Senior Review members may have done this? Well, a number of the members have affiliations with proposed projects (e.g. LSST, TMT) that will require funding.
Either this is done on a purely factual basis (i.e., you screwed up the info we gave you), or intrapolitical stuff will fall out. (How significant is it that Wayne Van Citters has not visited Arecibo? Will my former college president, Jon Strauss, a member of the National Science Board, be in a position to decide/steer NSF's ultimate decision on the Senior Review? Should Cornell send Michael Crosby a bunch of Godiva candy, given my personal experience that he likes chocolate?)
Needless to say, this is messy, especially since NASA will invariably be dragged into this mess. NASA and NSF have played football with the funding for the radar program for some time; it's unclear whether the handoff will take place, or if there will be a fumble. Cornell has drawn the line in the sand, stating that without additional funding, the radar program will be cut.
2. Appeal to Congress to save Arecibo Observatory
I call this approach the "Hubble gambit". This approach is bad for a number of reasons.
The Hubble Gambit succeeded for the following reasons:
a. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made it a high priority for NASA to make sure ST-9 (the servicing mission to Hubble) by threatening to withold funding from NASA. I imagine that she was influenced in part because Goddard Space Flight Center is located in her state, and the end of Hubble meant the end of the Space Telescope Science Institute and quite a few jobs.
b. Hubble makes beautiful pictures that were widely distributed to the public. Many of the Astronomy Pictures of the Day (APOD) are taken with Hubble. Optical instrumentation is considerably more developed than infrared, and as such can detect a great deal of beautiful structure in astrophysical phenomena.
c. University of Colorado - Boulder, the Southwestern Research Institute, and Ball Aerospace had spent $60 million to build the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. When I visited Boulder, this was identified as the single most expensive museum piece this side of the Mississippi. Not completely sure if that's true (where is Blue Boy?) but I got the point.
How does Arecibo measure on these points?
a. Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico, which has no voting representation in Congress. The non-voting member can lobby, but since PR depends heavily on subsidies (and enjoys tax-free status), he has little clout and motivation to push too hard.
b. Pretty pictures are nice. Radio does not make pretty pictures. It creates wonderful science, but the images I see tend to be reddish orange blobs. These images are somewhat more difficult to interpret.
c. There are new instruments that are being installed at Arecibo. However, these instruments do not require delivery and maintenance by a special launch vehicle or a crew, which for political reasons, need to go into space and do something- anything- until 2010.
In addition, it's probably a bad idea to try to lobby Congress. The politicization of science has received a fair amount of press, especially in - but not limited to - this administration. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, is on my bookshelf, waiting to be read.
Brian Dewhurst at the National Academy of Sciences, sitting on the Space Studies Board, points out in a Space Review article the many reasons why the Decadal Survey is good for both Congress and science. (The Decadal Survey is conducted every 10 years in the astronomical community, and identifies the best projects to support.) In short, Congress and the science community appreciate the process because both feel the money is being well spent, without insidious influence.
The Hubble gambit harmed this relationship, and it is probably for this reason that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has not reinstated the scientific advisory committees that were decommissioned during a reorganization following the departure of Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Doing so for Arecibo would probably rip the breach further, frustrate politicians, and invite the scientific community to join political camps.
3. Lobby Congress for an overall increase in NSF's funding
I believe this approach is the best. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a doubling of funding for NSF by 2010. While NSF-AST's share won't quite be $30 million, it will be significant. Combined with international funding and a somewhat reduced program, it should be possible to keep Arecibo running well after 2011.
I think this approach also has merit in a broader sense. Astronomy is uniquely positioned to be an excellent way to introduce young children to science. If NASA and NSF-AST were willing to develop effective curricula and standards - incorporating some of the goals and recommendations outlined in various science ed reports from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Academics, the National Science Foundation, and others - then we'd be well on our way of improving scientific education and training. This is timely, especially given that No Child Left Behind will begin testing for scientific competence. Once NCLB finds what everyone knows (America is pretty bad at science), the curriculum will have developed to meet the political/policy goal of repairing K-12 science education.
Under this broader framework, I think Cornell/NAIC can successfully point to their record and active programs (scientific and educational/public outreach) to say that Arecibo deserves to be saved. I'm fascinated by ALFALFA's organizational structure. I think Professors Haynes and Giovanelli have an excellent collaboration that promotes science not only at Research I institutes but also at liberal arts colleges. Such organization can and ought to be applied to other scientific programs that will promote earlier and more comprehensive entry of America's youth into the scientific process.
All this and I still have a paper to write...
No comments:
Post a Comment