Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Hard Times for These Times (1Dec92)
(from the Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 32, 1 December 1992)

NOAO users and management have gained a growing awareness in recent
weeks that there appears to be a fundamental change in the way that
Congress approaches funding for basic research and that NSF is
preparing to respond to that change. In October, Kent Wilson (Acting
Director of the Astronomy Division of the NSF) visited Tucson and
addressed a joint meeting of the CTIO and KPNO Users' Committees. The
following week, a group from NOAO attended the Advisory Committee of
the Astronomy Division (ACAST) meeting in Washington, during which we
heard from Walter Massey (Director of the NSF) and Bill Harris
(Associate Director for the Math and Physical Sciences Division).

The deep issue is that the rationale for supporting basic research is
undergoing careful scrutiny and fundamental revision.  That support was
originally sold to Congress on the basis of strengthening defense,
increasing economic competitiveness, and improving health care.  The
Cold War is over, the status of the US economy is a subject of
considerable debate, and the control of health care costs is now a
major issue. There is a growing sentiment in Congress that they wish to
see more accountability in terms of direct return on their research
investment. Consequences include an increased emphasis on research with
direct application, an increased involvement of the "end users" (i.e.,
in industry and education) in the evaluation of the effectiveness of
funded programs, and a generally closer coupling of supported research
to defined societal goals.

The NSF is receiving advice from a commission of the National Science
Board on how to increase its involvement as an interface between
university and national laboratory research and industrial application.
That commission received over 600 letters from the research community
in reaction to this contemplated new direction. The exact structure of
such a new interface is yet to be decided, but two trends seem very
clear. One is that the current intention of NSF is to move in the
direction of supporting technology transfer and research of interest to
industry and of value to economic competitiveness. The second is that
fields of research with easily identifiable application, such as
materials science, will have a demonstrably stronger claim to funding
priority.

The development of this year's funding situation provides a portent for
the near-term direction of astronomy support. Despite a strong request
in the President's budget, the House-Senate conference committee
finally committed to a total allocation for Research and Related
Activities (our grants and centers) that is about 1% less than last
year's total. However, this year's bill contained an unprecedented
level of direction for the NSF, both in terms of fields of emphasis and
individually earmarked projects. To show allocations responsive to
Congressional guidelines in targeted science areas, the NSF has to
reduce the other areas of the program, given the flat funding profile.
As a result, at the time of this writing, the budget for the Astronomy
Division was starting out at a level down by about 10% from last
year's. The NSF then must wrestle with accommodating the three projects
earmarked for Math and Physical Sciences: LIGO, Gemini and the High
Magnetic Fields Lab.

The consequence for NOAO must inevitably be reduced support for the
current fiscal year. Many university departments have suffered similar
difficulties recently, but there is an important difference. In many
cases, the universities had been enjoying a period of substantial
growth prior to the current downturn. NOAO has incurred a loss of
support of over 20% in real terms in the last ten years. There is
little to no flexibility left to respond to a sharp reduction in
funding by imposing across the board cuts. Each division within the
observatories is now struggling to define new modes of operation. The
goal is to preserve as much access as possible to the telescope data
stream (even if not directly to the telescopes) and to maintain the
core of excellence in instrument development that makes forefront
science possible and leads to a defining role for NOAO in the era of
Gemini and new solar physics projects.

In this context, I would like your input on two very general questions.
What are the aspects of NOAO that are most important to you and should
receive the highest priority for sustained support?  For example, there
are several models of nighttime operation that could be considered.
Resources could be concentrated on the largest aperture telescopes,
with the smaller instruments closed or given over to consortia.
Limited direct access could be given to the broader range of
telescopes, with a substantial increase in queue scheduling for the
programs with fewer requirements for real-time decision making.
Significant shares of telescope time could be "sold" to user groups in
exchange for operations or instrumentation development support. Do you
view the availability of reliable, cutting-edge instrumentation as
critical to your programs? Does NOAO's active development of data
reduction or instrument interface software strongly benefit your
research productivity?

The other question is: How can we successfully promote ground-based
optical astronomy, both solar and night-time, in an era of emphasis on
applied research and measurable return on research investment? We as a
community must develop that case and be prepared to offer it high
visibility to justify continuing support in an increasingly competitive
environment.  The notion of research funding as an entitlement based
solely on excellence is coming under sharp attack. Should we emphasize
our impact on the general public, on attracting young people to
scientific careers, and on training researchers of high caliber to
enhance the relevance of our field? Should we attempt to define a set
of priorities for operations, infrastructure, and grants in the same
spirit as project prioritization in the decade surveys, in order to
offer a more united voice to our funding agencies?

NOAO takes pride in the unique combination of facilities and
instrumentation that it offers to its users and in the level of support
it provides in maintaining the quality of the data obtained here. We
anticipate a strong future through the vitality of our current
facilities and in our role as the focus for the US participation in the
Gemini Project and in new solar physics initiatives. We ask your advice
on our choice of new, reduced operating modes so that we can be
positioned for maximum effectiveness to achieve our shared goal of US
leadership in astronomical science.

Please send your responses to me, rgreen@noao.edu.

Richard F. Green

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents