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 the Establishment of Science Institutes
In response to a request for guidance on the establishment of science institutes,
Space Studies Board Chair Claude R. Canizares sent the following letter to NASA
Chief Scientist France A. Cordova on August 11, 1995.
The Space Studies Board is pleased to respond to your request of June 8, 1995,
for comments on several issues related to NASA's proposed concept of
establishing science institutes as part of its Zero Base Review. You requested a
rapid response with our initial comments in order to meet your schedule for further
definition of the concept and the possible establishment of pilot institutes.
Your presentation to the Board during our meeting of June 8, together with some
background material mailed earlier to all members, was the starting point for our
deliberations on this topic. Our discussions continued on the following day with the
Associate Administrators for Space Science and Mission to Planet Earth and the
Deputy Associate Administrator for Life and Microgravity Sciences and
Applications. A subset of the Board, together with members of the Future of Space
Science (FOSS) Steering Group, also had the opportunity to discuss the proposed
institutes with the Administrator, Mr. Daniel Goldin.
Your written request asked for input on three points, which I summarize here: (1)
the institute concept and the conditions under which institutes could meet the
stated goals of "strengthening the quality of NASA's science and expanding
communication and cooperation with the external community (academia and
industry)"; (2) the makeup of NASA's proposed "Institute Framework Team" and
additional issues it should consider; and (3) lessons learned by the community
from its experience with other, existing research institutes.
Given the need for a rapid response, this letter focuses on the first two points,
although some of the Board's response is necessarily shaped by the combined
experience of our members with existing institutes, as requested in point (3). In
addition to space scientists, the members present during our discussions included
individuals with experience with Defense Department and industrial laboratories.
This response draws on the Board's assessment of the roles and missions of
NASA center scientists contained in my letter to you of March 29, 1995 (the Center
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cdva811.html (1 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:44:54 AM]
OCR for page 2
Space Studies Board
Science Letter). Please note that the following observations are based on our
understanding of ideas and plans still in a seminal state, with many important
details not yet filled in.
At the most general level, the Board believes that the formation of science
institutes, under the management of external academic or industrial research
entities, and for some carefully selected portions of NASA science, may contribute
to the stated goals. It will be a challenge to NASA management, to the affected
centers, and to their non-government partners to ensure that the adopted
structures and processes achieve the goals stated in your letter, namely, to
strengthen the quality of NASA's science and to expand communication and
cooperation with the external community. The Board assumes that any plan for
establishing science institutes would be part of a larger science plan that considers
how national space research goals will be met by the sum of NASA's science
activities, including both civil service and non-civil service components. Key
elements of this plan would be charters for each institute that are broad enough to
permit the institutes to take advantage of their independence from NASA but
focused enough to implement their assigned roles in the overall science plan.
These charters should be customized to each institute, and there must be
incentives for each institute to adhere to its charter. Planning should also reflect a
realistic appraisal of prospects for future funding (especially from non-NASA
sources) for institute activities.
The Board's Center Science Letter states 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 the world." It further states that "this binding requires that NASA
have world-class scientists who, as a group, combine both . . . internal and external
functional roles . . . and are sufficiently tightly integrated into NASA's engineering
and technical infrastructure." That letter identifies key examples of external and
internal functions for NASA scientists and then describes four principles or qualities
of NASA science that would support the stated mission. In brief, these qualities are
(i) scientific excellence and depth, (ii) sufficient scientific breadth, (iii) firm
integration into NASA's technical and engineering infrastructure, and (iv)
interdependency among NASA centers and with the external community.
Certain internal and external functions described in the Center Science Letter, such
as participation in policy formulation and selection of external investigators, are
properly the province of government employees, but should not be vested in field
centers in order to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest vis-à-vis outside
scientific competitors. It is therefore the recommendation of the Board that these
functions be retained by Headquarters, where they would be discharged by
government employees.
Considering the proposed institutes in terms of the four principles or qualities
presented in the Center Science Letter, the Board offers the following observations
and recommendations:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cdva811.html (2 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:44:54 AM]
OCR for page 3
Space Studies Board
(i) SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE. The major motivation given for establishing
science institutes is to enhance scientific excellence. The Board believes that a
proper institute structure could well contribute to this goal. Process is also
important: plans should be openly developed, widely understood, and methodically
and consistently implemented. Otherwise, uncertainties and turmoil during the
transition could degrade current scientific quality by driving the best (and therefore
most employable) scientists out of NASA and its research programs.
(ii) SCIENTIFIC BREADTH. Institutes with well-defined charters could fit into an
overall NASA science activity that meets the agency's requirements for breadth
across the relevant disciplines. It is unclear whether interdisciplinary research, a
valued by-product of scientific breadth, would be better enabled at the proposed
institutes than in-house at the centers.
(iii) INTEGRATION. Achieving tight integration into the NASA engineering and
technical infrastructure may prove more difficult for external institute personnel
than for in-house civil service scientists. At least in the pilot institutes under
discussion, the scientific activities to be collected in external institutes are not the
main focus of their parent centers. In such cases, where the science programs may
be less reliant on the primary technical infrastructure of the parent center, the need
for, and potential benefit from, tight integration are reduced. On the other hand,
many of the functions identified in the Board's Center Science Letter entail field
center scientists strongly influencing or even directing activities in key engineering
and technical areas. Where institute scientists are expected to exercise these
functions but are viewed as "contractors," those roles could be compromised. It
might be useful to find existing examples where non-government scientists have
successfully taken leadership roles in relation to a government laboratory. (The Jet
Propulsion Laboratory is not such a case, since there the entire center is staffed
with non-civil servants.)
(iv) INTERDEPENDENCY. Greater interdependence between centers and the
outside community might be achieved if the institutes can maintain firm ties to both.
It is less clear how institutes would strengthen interdependency among centers or
work to soften a center's insularity or defensive posture. The Center Science Letter
recommends that "NASA should strive to assure that the centers themselves and
their senior managers assume greater responsibility for a healthy partnership with
the external industrial and university community." Formation of institutes should not
be allowed to diminish this ongoing responsibility.
With respect to your second point, the composition of the "Institute Framework
Team," the Board strongly supports the suggestion that such a team have vigorous
external participation. Any plan for establishing institutes will stand or fall on its
details, and we have provided some issues for the Team's consideration.
Independent perspectives from outside NASA should have an important role
formulating those details and addressing these issues.
As you know, the FOSS study is addressing science organization within NASA in a
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cdva811.html (3 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:44:54 AM]
OCR for page 4
Space Studies Board
more comprehensive manner, including the question of science institutes. The final
report of the FOSS study will include consideration of your point (3). Every attempt
is being made to expedite completion of this report, as Mr. Goldin requested, and
we hope that it will help make a significant contribution to the NASA reinvention
process.
We hope that these brief comments are helpful and look forward to additional
discussions on these important issues at future meetings.
SSB Membership
SPACE STUDIES BOARD
Claude R. Canizares, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair
John A. Armstrong, IBM Corporation (retired)
James P. Bagian, Environmental Protection Agency
Daniel N. Baker, University of Colorado
Lawrence Bogorad, Harvard University
Donald E. Brownlee, University of Washington
John J. Donegan, John Donegan Associates, Inc.
Anthony W. England, University of Michigan
Daniel J. Fink, D.J. Fink Associates, Inc.
Martin E. Glicksman, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Ronald Greeley, Arizona State University
Bill Green, former member, U.S. House of Representatives
Noel W. Hinners, Lockheed Martin Astronautics
Janet G. Luhmann, University of California at Berkeley
John H. McElroy, University of Texas at Arlington
Roberta Balstad Miller, CIESIN
Berrien Moore III, University of New Hampshire
Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center
Simon Ostrach, Case Western Reserve University
Carlé M. Pieters, Brown University
Marcia J. Rieke, University of Arizona
Roland W. Schmitt, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (retired)
John A. Simpson, University of Chicago
Robert E. Williams, Space Telescope Science Institute
Marc S. Allen, Director
Anne K. Simmons, Senior Program Assistant
Last update 2/11/00 at 9:23 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.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/cdva811.html (4 of 5) [6/18/2004 9:44:54 AM]
