AIP FYI #8: OSTP Director Marburger Discusses Astronomy, Physics, and the
“I want to state clearly at this point that, despite its apparent
impracticality, the administration values discovery-oriented
science, and aims to continue to support the grand quest for
knowledge about the universe at the largest and the smallest
scales.” – John Marburger
************
Earlier this month John Marburger, the President’s Science
Adviser and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, addressed the American Astronomical Society. Marburger
discussed astronomy and physics and the relationship between
them, priority-setting, sound management, and the FY 2003 budget
request. Selections from his address follow:
“During most of the second half of the past century, federal
support for science was strongly influenced by the conditions of
the Cold War. The physical sciences, in particular, achieved
immense prestige during World War II, and seem to have been
regarded through the entire Cold War period as indispensable to
national security. Congress tried to make the link more explicit
with the ‘Mansfield Amendment’ in 1969, which required the
Department of Defense to limit its support to research that had
‘a direct and apparent relationship to a specific military
function or operation.’ The dual missions of basic research and
national security inherited by the Atomic Energy Commission
laboratories, and subsequently by the Department of Energy, also
reinforced the link between physical science and security issues.
But when the Cold War “> to an end in 1991, many political
observers, and Congress as well, began to question the
assumptions underlying support for basic science. It was clear
at the time that science, and particularly what I call
discovery-oriented science, would have to make a new case for
continued federal support that relied less heavily than in the
past upon its military or national defense application.”
“. . . [I]t seems to me that the process of re-evaluation that
began a decade ago has matured, and that we are entering its
later stages. It is particularly important for the astronomy
community to be aware of this evolving state of affairs, because
many people view astronomy as having even less relevance to
societal needs than particle physics. The fact that astronomy
seems to be converging with particle physics encourages us to
compare the fields and assess their joint prospects.”
“I want to state clearly at this point that, despite its apparent
impracticality, the administration values discovery-oriented
science, and aims to continue to support the grand quest for
knowledge about the universe at the largest and the smallest
scales. But it also understands that the same technology that
makes this quest so exciting today has created unprecedented
opportunities for nearly every other field of science. Advances
in instrumentation and computing power have given us control of
matter at the atomic level, which has staggering consequences for
life science and materials science, and for their applications to
medicine and nanotechnology. These advances have opened access
to a new scientific territory which is best described as the
frontier of complexity. Our nation cannot fail to take advantage
of the leadership at this frontier that previous investments in
basic science have made possible.
“In view of this embarrassment of scientific riches, the
processes of choice are paramount. Pushing back the ubiquitous
frontier of complexity costs considerably less than similar
progress at the receding frontiers of the large and the small.
Consequently those who rely on big facilities like particle
accelerators and space-borne telescopes bear a heavy
responsibility to choose carefully, manage wisely, and maximize
the quotient of discovery versus dollars.
“Both particle physics and astronomy do in fact have excellent
planning and prioritization processes. The recent ‘Decadal
Survey’ of astronomy and astrophysics sets forth a vision of
‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium’ that includes
clear priorities and rationales for future projects. The
forthcoming report of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
subpanel on long range planning similarly promises to lay out
priorities and a ‘roadmap’ to future discovery. Moreover HEPAP
guides program planning in both the National Science Foundation
and the Department of Energy, as does the comparable advisory
committee for nuclear physics. Such cross agency planning and
coordination is increasingly important for astronomy and
astrophysics as well, as the programs of NASA and NSF bear
increasingly on the same science. The coordinated management of
these fields has been a matter of concern to the administration,
but I believe satisfactory new mechanisms can be developed that
will address the issues. The success of HEPAP and NSAC in
coordinating their fields across agencies suggests that a similar
National Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee can, and
should, help to optimize programs within NASA and NSF.
“Both fields are also becoming increasingly international. Teams
building and operating th”shoeat detectors at national
accelerator facilities have always had strong international
collaborations. The United States is participating in the
construction of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider as well as in its
ATLAS detector. Future accelerator projects will be of such
large scale that international cooperation will be essential.
Many examples also exist of international cooperation in
astronomy, both for space-based and ground-based observations.
This administration values international collaborations that
serve the mutual interests of the partners, and are based on
sound approaches to the management of their work.
“Strong management is essential to the successful completion and
operation of large facilities as well as to the effective
utilization of funds for smaller programs. This administration
strongly emphasizes good management for all Federal agencies, and
The President’s Management Agenda will be applied to science as
well as to other federally funded operations. The Agenda
includes the principle that performance is an important basis for
funding allocations, which implies that measures of performance
are essential ingredients in the budget process. Some
investigators have expressed alarm at the idea of measuring basic
research performance, but I believe it is an inevitable as well
as an essential aspect of the post-Cold War relation between
science and the federal government. In view of its long history
of making difficult choices, the astronomy community could
provide leadership to other fields in making its criteria for
choice explicit.”
###############
Richard M .Jones
Media and Government Relations
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
http://www.aip.org/gov
##END##########