That research should be publishable and should be published.
That additional financial support should be given to NPS.
Closer relations with the scientific community.
Greater consultation between management and research units.
The creation of a scientific advisory committee.
The National Park Service responded to the Leopold and Robbins reports in several ways. An Office of Natural Science Studies was created to build a program in scientific studies; this office was a quality control unit directly under the supervision of the chief scientist, who reported to the director. The Leopold committee was in part reconstituted as a permanent Natural Sciences Advisory Committee. In response to the Robbins report, formal research plans were developed for a few major park units. The social sciences were added in an attempt to better understand the human dimensions of park use and management. Also, a mutual interest developed between the NPS and some academic researchers.
There were two major problems, however, that combined to plague the NPS science program at the beginning of the 1970s: inadequate funds to support a continuing program, and a question of who should direct the work of scientists. In 1972, the position of NPS chief scientist was assigned to the associate director for professional services. This not only reduced direct access to the NPS director, but it also decreased the prestige and effectiveness of the chief scientist and of the science program.
At the request of then-NPS Director Gary Everhardt, in 1977 Durward Allen and Starker Leopold reviewed the service's natural science program. Their findings appear in a document known as the Allen and Leopold report (Allen and Leopold, 1977), which was submitted to the new NPS director, William Whalen. It states,
The National Park Service has reached a time in its history, and in the history of the nation, when science and research should be given a much greater and clearly recognized re-