Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Space Studies Board
Search:
Jump to
Top
NewsJump
to Science
in the
Subscribe to our FREE e-
Headlines
newsletter!
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
June 18, 2004 Current Operating Status
On NASA Field Center Science and Scientists
In response to a request for guidance on the roles and mission of science and
scientists at the NASA field centers, Chair Claude R. Canizares sent the following
Space Studies Board letter to NASA Chief Scientist France A. Cordova on March
29, 1995.
On behalf of my fellow Space Studies Board members, I would like to thank you for
visiting with us on March 1 and for providing us with a broad discussion of the
budget challenges facing NASA and of efforts under way to meet these challenges.
You described NASA's urgent need to identify ways to reduce staff levels in order
to meet the Administration's budget targets for future years. In particular, you
described the process by which NASA senior management is exploring possible
consolidations, redistributions, and reductions of science activities at NASA
Headquarters and at the field centers.
We subsequently pursued some of the issues you raised in conversations with
Associate Administrators W. Huntress, H. Holloway, C. Kennel, and A. Ladwig. We
also had the opportunity to discuss them during several intervals, including
Executive Session periods, at our meeting and during a subsequent teleconference
of our Executive Committee.
During your visit, you requested a rapid response from the Space Studies Board to
help you and other senior managers identify key principles to be considered for
preserving or even strengthening NASA's ability to carry out its goals in space
research as you continue to explore downsizing options. Your interests were
further clarified in your memorandum to me, dated March 9, 1995, which specifies
two issues on which NASA seeks comments from the Board:
1. The roles and mission of NASA center scientists, as they enable the national
resource of space science; and
2. Alternative management models for the science enterprise.
In this letter we briefly present our observations regarding these issues. The
urgency of your schedule, which requires a major management decision by mid-
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cordova.html (1 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:40:50 AM]
OCR for page 2
Space Studies Board
May, 1995, does not permit a more exhaustive study. Nonetheless, we hope these
limited observations will be of some assistance.
In its discussions, the Board proceeded from the premise that science will continue
to play an essential role in NASA, as it has during the nearly four decades of the
agency's existence and as called for in the Space Act. The most recent NASA-wide
strategic plan strongly reasserts the centrality of science to NASA; the three
science offices span three of the five major NASA enterprises and arguably
contribute to the others as well. At the same time, we are mindful of the rapid
evolution of the conduct of space science in NASA and note that reorganization,
though painful, could provide an opportunity to strengthen the agency's ability to
function in new ways.
1. Roles and mission of scientists within NASA
Before elaborating the functional roles of NASA scientists, we stress two points.
First, we believe that the most important mission of NASA scientists is to bind
NASA's immense engineering and technical capabilities to the still larger and more
diverse industrial and academic research communities across the country and
around the world. Without such a tight binding, NASA cannot remain at the
forefront of science, nor can these broad and diverse communities make the most
effective and scientifically productive contribution to and use of the nation's civilian
space infrastructure. While it may take new forms, a close coupling between the
agency and the spectrum of research communities will become even more critical
in a new, leaner NASA, with its increased emphasis on NASA-university-industry
partnerships like the Discovery program, long-lived, multicomponent research
activities like the Earth Observing System, and multiuse orbiting research facilities
like Spacelab and the International Space Station.
Second, we believe that this binding requires that NASA have world-class
scientists who, as a group, combine both the internal and external functional roles
described below and are themselves sufficiently tightly integrated into NASA's
engineering and technical infrastructure. The very fact that NASA's scientists serve
both internal and external roles establishes a conduit between NASA and the
research community. At the same time, these scientists must conduct their own
independent scientific research at the frontiers of their disciplines in order to remain
world-class. Such research is, therefore, itself another essential mission of NASA's
scientists.
The specific functional roles of NASA scientists are associated with their clear
mission of enabling the space science activities of the agency. These roles can be
classified as internal, supporting the conduct of programs within NASA, or external,
interacting with the broader research community. We believe that both kinds of
roles have been and will continue to be of critical importance.
Examples of important internal functional roles of NASA scientists include:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cordova.html (2 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:40:50 AM]
OCR for page 3
Space Studies Board
Providing scientific leadership and expertise to support formulation of
q
NASA policy and management of the agency;
Providing the scientific component of implementation oversight for space
q
science missions during development and operations phases;
Providing direct and responsive scientific expertise for the definition,
q
design, development, and operations of space assets and of supporting
ground assets;
Assuring the scientific quality and utility of NASA facilities in space and
q
on the ground;
Initiating and developing enabling technology and innovative
q
instrumentation for space science through synergy with engineers and
technologists; and
Providing direct and responsive scientific expertise in the specification
q
and oversight of NASA contracts and grants.
Examples of important external functional roles of NASA scientists include:
Conducting and overseeing selection of investigations and investigators,
q
peer reviews, and advisory committees;
Providing interfaces and facilitating interactions between extramural
q
investigators and NASA's technical capabilities and infrastructure in
space and on the ground;
Fostering new, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary scientific research
q
made possible by the unique opportunities offered by the space
environment or space missions and by special supporting facilities and
research assets at NASA's field centers; and
Providing both outreach to, and in-reach from, the scientific community, the
educational community, and the public for space research, one of NASA's most
visible and widely accessible activities.
2. Alternative management models for the science enterprise
As you note in your memorandum, the Board has undertaken the Future of Space
Science (FOSS) project, which includes an in-depth study of the broad question of
alternative organizations for science in NASA. The Board task group charged with
the organizational portion of the study is now only part way through a systematic
assessment and is not, therefore, in a position to issue a meaningful report in time
for the May deadline.
As part of the recent Board discussion, however, we did consider the question of
what fundamental principles should help define the roles of science and scientists
in NASA. These principles, in effect, derive from the "roles and missions," above.
They may be of help in evaluating alternative ways of managing NASA science.
If the most important mission of NASA scientists is to bind NASA to the broader
research communities, then the most fundamental principle is to assure that this
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cordova.html (3 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:40:50 AM]
OCR for page 4
Space Studies Board
binding is maintained or even strengthened through any reorganization. This
principle underlies many of the following more specific ones:
Research quality should be excellent. Whatever role science assumes in
q
NASA, there must be an uncompromising commitment to the highest
standards. Maintaining excellence is essential for the effective discharge
of both the internal and external roles described above. To be excellent,
NASA scientists must, as a rule, engage in frontier research secured in
open and fair competition with outside investigators, through selection
based on uniform peer review. Exceptions for programmatic research or
incubation of new ideas should be limited in scope and duration.
NASA should maintain sufficient breadth of scientific activity to maintain
q
connections to all the major disciplines involved in NASA's research
program. Not all subdisciplines need be present within NASA, nor is this
feasible. But every external subdiscipline relevant to NASA's research
program should have a clear and natural connection to some part of the
agency. Scientists who individually have broad or multidisciplinary
talents or who represent emerging disciplines of interest to the agency
have special value in this regard.
NASA should also maintain appropriate depth in its science groups to
q
maintain excellence. At one extreme, there must be at least a "critical
mass" of collocated investigators in a subject to provide a productive,
stimulating research environment. At the other extreme, center staffing in
a discipline that greatly exceeds this critical mass may tilt the balance
away from university research during a time of decreased resources.
NASA science should be firmly integrated into the NASA infrastructure.
q
Effective coordination of scientific research needs with technical and
engineering capability is difficult to achieve and fragile because of the
inevitable tensions between the two "cultures" of basic science and
practical engineering. When these cultures work together, the resulting
synergy yields spectacular successes, as NASA's history attests. But this
coordination requires continual nurturing, and cannot be maintained at
arm's length. Therefore, in addition to the essential need to have
cognizant scientists at a center implementing a particular major research
program, it is advantageous to strategically distribute science activities
across the agency. Counter-arguments for greater consolidation arise
from the desire for administrative efficiency and from the scientists' own
need to maintain a "critical mass" at any one location. These competing
considerations should be carefully balanced in making any changes that
might prove difficult to reverse.
NASA should strengthen its sense of interdependency with the broader
q
research communities. The need to achieve research quality through
scientific competition has the danger of creating conflicts of interest and
instincts of self-preservation at NASA centers. Scientists at NASA
Headquarters have played an essential role in mitigating these negative
tendencies in the setting of policy, the conduct of peer reviews, and the
implementation of programs. As Headquarters staffing is reduced, this
role must be maintained. Moreover, NASA should strive to assure that
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cordova.html (4 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:40:50 AM]
OCR for page 5
Space Studies Board
the centers themselves and their senior managers assume greater
responsibility for a healthy partnership with the external industrial and
university community. Formation of substantive partnerships across
NASA and between NASA and external institutions is just one example
of a way to foster a sense of interdependency. Another example at the
working level is the actual cycling of working scientists around NASA,
into NASA from outside institutions, and from NASA to outside
institutions (through leaves or sabbaticals).
The Board believes that these principles also apply to alternative organizational
arrangements designed to carry out some of the scientific functions noted above
but managed for NASA by nonprofit institutions like universities or by another
(remote) center. The space program itself has many examples of alternative
management approaches, for example the Jet Propulsion Laboratory managed by
the California Institute of Technology, the Applied Physics Laboratory managed by
the Johns Hopkins University, and the Space Telescope Science Institute
managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy. An
assessment of the strengths and shortcomings of these and other management
approaches could provide guidance for NASA as it strives to streamline its
organizations and operations.
The Board recognizes that sweeping changes are in store for NASA and its
science programs. The final results of the FOSS study, now in progress, will
address many of the above issues in more depth and detail. We are confident that
NASA can continue to provide the nation excellent value in science, technology,
and inspiration, building on its solid record of achievement. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to assure an optimum return on the nation's space
research investment in the years ahead.
Last update 2/11/00 at 11:12 am
Site managed by Anne Simmons, Space Studies Board
Site managed by the SSB Web Group.
To comment on this Web page or report an error, please send feedback to the Space Studies Board.
Subscribe to e-newsletters | Feedback | Back to Top
Copyright © 2004. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cordova.html (5 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:40:50 AM]
