Smithsonian Science: First Class on a Coach Budget

Abstract

Founded in 1846 “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge,” the Smithsonian Institution is a world leader in scientific research spanning paleobiology to planetary science. Over the past year, three separate panels concluded that the Smithsonian Institution has met its goal when it comes to science, but continued progress is at risk because of a stagnant budget. In May 2001, the Smithsonian Board of Regents created an 18-member science commission to advise the institution’s secretary and the board itself on the status of science at the Smithsonian and to make recommendations for the future. The commission members, whose areas of academic interest range from anthropology to zoology, come from universities, research institutions, museums, and government agencies in the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as from the Smithsonian. Their findings surprised no one: Science at the Smithsonian is “facing the most critical time in its 156-year history.” The commission’s final report, released in January 2003, echoes the main themes of recent reports by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and outlines steps to “reverse the long-term trend of declining support and relative neglect of scientific units.” Several problems jeopardize the strength of Smithsonian science. Among them are the “lack of broad Institution-wide strategic planning for Smithsonian science and lack of significant links between Division or Unit planning and central planning; poor communications in administrative operations between top Smithsonian officials and Units and within the Units themselves; and lack of involvement of Unit Directors and senior administrators in financial decision-making.” Furthermore, the diversity of research at the Smithsonian may make the science program appear “diffuse and lacking in focus.” To counteract this perception and to encourage better coordination between the scientific units of the Smithsonian, the commission recommended that Smithsonian science endeavors be organized into four themes: (1) the origin and nature of the universe, (2) the formation and evolution of Earth and similar planets, (3) the discovery and understanding of life’s diversity, and (4) the study of human diversity and culture change. This proposal is particularly attractive, according to the commission, because reorganizing programs around these themes would not require costly, large-scale administrative reorganization. And cost is a major concern. As the commission said, “The most significant problem facing Smithsonian science is funding.” Despite a rising budget for the Smithsonian as a whole, the science budget has steadily declined. This decline in funding has led to the loss of many Smithsonian research scientists and staff members, especially at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH). In the past decade alone, NMNH has lost 30 federal scientist positions, a decline of 23 percent. Shrinking budgets have also led to “a reduction of program support (e.g., fellowships, grants, libraries, and publications) and reduced flexibility, which has inhibited new initiatives and appointments by limiting the funds available for major scientific instrumentation, research equipment and for staff renewal.” To ensure continued success and to foster growth of the Smithsonian science programs, an infusion of new funds will be necessary. Despite the solid recommendations of the science commission and the reports from NAS and NAPA, the only increase in the fiscal year 2004 budget for Smithsonian science is $800,000 for a new fellowship program. This program directly addresses a top priority recommendation of the science commission to infuse new thinking and generate new approaches to Smithsonian science. The increase, although not enough to repair the damage to Smithsonian science that was documented in the commission’s report, seemed to please Smithsonian officials. David Evans, recently appointed undersecretary for science at the Smithsonian, pointed out that the NAS and NAPA reports didn’t come out until October 2002, when the ink was just about dry on the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2004. Smithsonian officials are optimistic that future budget cycles will be favorable. As Evans noted, the release of the reports from the commission, NAS, and NAPA seemed to herald a change in attitude regarding the Smithsonian, and there is now “energy available to make progress even in difficult times.”

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.