|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
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 350
350
1980's. We believe that such an approach would be pref-
erable to the perpetuation of postdoctoral positions.
Without vigorous astronomers, the best space- and
ground-based facilities will not give the optimum return
We regard our proposed program for the maintenance of
research vitality as being of the highest priority.
III. OTHER ISSUES IN THE PRACTICE OF ASTRONOMY
These issues we group into matters concerning personnel,
education, and the organization of astronomy:
A. Personnel
, —
1. Minorities in Astronomy. The number of U.S.
astronomers who are members of ethnic minorities is dis-
turbingly small: they apparently represent fewer than 2%
of the AAS membership. The small number of Black and
Hispanic astronomers is particularly a matter of concern,
since these groups represent 11.6% and 5.6% of the U.S.
population, respectively. Orientals represent 3.3% of
the population. American Indians are also an important
minority. Given the difficulties many astronomers are
currently experiencing in finding satisfactory employ-
ment, we do not wish to encourage, unrealistically, large
numbers of young people to try to become astronomers. On
the other hand, no one should be denied the opportunity
to study astronomy, or become an astronomer, because of
his or her ethnic background.
We make the following recommendations, similar to those
made by the AAS Committee on Ethnic Minorities, to encour-
age young members of ethnic minorities in the study of
astronomy:
(a) Observatories should undertake programs tar-
geted at ethnic minorities that bring high school and
college students to the observatory to work with indi-
vidual astronomers. Programs at Kitt Peak National
Laboratory and the Summer Intern Program operated for
several years by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for
Astrophysics are good examples of this type of activity.
(b) Astronomy departments should contact institu-
tions in their area with large minority enrollments and
invite them to participate in activities such as open
nights and public lectures.
(c) Astronomers are encouraged to visit colleges
OCR for page 351
351
and universities with large minority enrollments, to
provide role models and to seek out students who are
interested in studying astronomy.
2. Women in Astronomy. We endorse the report of the
Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) accepted by the
AAS in 1980. In particular, we endorse the following
recommendations: (a) flexibility in hiring and tenure
procedures, (b) equal opportunity for all in the astro-
nomical community, (c) drawing the attention of small
colleges and other institutions to the advantages of
hiring astronomers, and (d) elimination of sex and racial
bias in educational materials and acknowledgement of the
contributions to astronomy made by women.
In the 1970's the employment and status of women in
astronomy became a major issue. The reports of the AAS's
CSW indicate that while the status of women in astronomy
is improving in some cases, it is still not equal to that
of men.
Increasing the pool of available talent benefits the
astronomical profession as a whole and ensures the maxi-
mum opportunity for new, innovative ideas to be brought
forward. Furthermore, some of the recommendations of the
CSW, such as encouragement of small institutions to hire
astronomers and the call for flexible hiring and tenure
procedures, would benefit many astronomers in the job
market, particularly those looking for an alternative to
the traditional full-time, tenure-track position.
3. Dual-Career Couples. When both members of a mar-
ried couple are attempting to pursue careers, they face
special difficulties. Our survey of opinions in the com-
munity resulted in replies ranging from jocularity to
anguish. This problem would be alleviated, of course, by
implementation of our primary recommendations, simply
through creating more jobs. However, we further recommend
(a) appropriate modification of any remaining nepotism
rules, (b) that part-time persons be permitted to act as
Principal Investigators, and (c) that institutions follow
a liberal policy on shared jobs.
B. Education
4. Public Communication. We recognize the need for,
and encourage astronomers to devote a suitable portion of
their time to, the communication of astronomical results
OCR for page 352
352
to the general public. Such efforts should be recognized
and encouraged by funding agencies, academic institutions,
and professional organizations, as a necessary and bene-
ficial service activity. Astronomy is a highly visible
example of the physical sciences. Current astronomical
results are astonishing. Astronomers have the obligation
to communicate up-to-date research results to the public.
In so doing, astronomers can instill an appreciation for
science, the application of reason, and the scientific
method to the pUbllC.
·
~ Communication of astronomical
Ideas, both to the public at large and to key persons
such as teachers and community leaders, will play a
pivotal role in the health of the field in the 1980's.
Public communication is an obligation of the astronomers
to those who have helped astronomy to progress--the tax-
payers. It is an essential prerequisite to the develop-
ment of broad-based interest in astronomy--interest that
can then result in increased governmental support. Pri-
vate funding of astronomy is also often enhanced by pub-
lic communication. We include as part of public communi-
cation the teaching of astronomy courses to nonmajors; at
current enrollment rates, at least 2 million potential
voters will take astronomy courses during the 1980's.
They should remember the astronomy course for conscience
majors as a stimulating intellectual experience, not just
as the least painful way to satisfy a science requirement.
Implementation of this recommendation requires initia-
tive on the part of individual astronomers and, most
importantly, recognition from their department chairmen
_ . .
and group leaders or the value of this type of activity.
Our questionnaire results indicated that department chair-
men virtually unanimously regard public communication as
beneficial and that most recommend that junior faculty,
who have the greatest incentive to use their time wisely,
do spend some time on this activity.
Their attitude
needs to be forcefully communicated, so that there is
broad, extensive participation by astronomers in the
communication of astronomy to the lay public.
5. Training of Astronomers.
General:
severely limited.
m e job market for astronomers is
(Later sections show that, approxi-
mately, half of the persons who received a Ph.D. in
astronomy in 1970 found permanent employment in astron-
omy.) Training astronomers so that they can compete
favorably with physicists for academic and other post
OCR for page 353
353
Lions partially addresses this problem. Computer scien-
tists are currently in great demand, and a good background
in that field opens additional opportunities. Other
interdisciplinary approaches should be encouraged.
Astronomy graduate programs should re-examine their
curricula, to assess the extent to which their students
are trained for diverse job options. The required
courses, both in astronomy and other areas, should be
carefully designed to provide rigorous training on which
students may build for future work in new areas.
We recommend that the training of astronomers include
the acquisition of skills in such specialized areas as
electronics, electro-optical devices, mechanical systems,
computer software, and systems engineering; these skills
are not only relevant to the development of astronomical
instrumentation but also make astronomy graduates more
attractive to industry.
Care and Nurturing of Instrumentalists: Continued
training of instrumentalists will be vital to the next 10
years of astronomy. Astronomers capable of developing
instrumental concepts, designing new equipment, and
overseeing the construction of instruments are important
to astronomy. They have the ultimate purpose of the
instrument--the acquisition of theoretically interpret-
able scientific observations--firmly in mind. And they
are responsible for many of the major advances in instru-
mentation used for astronomy in the last two decades.
We recommend the following steps to maintain the
~ , _
production of instrumentalists:
(a) Training in experimental physics should be
encouraged for instrumentally minded astronomers. Expo-
sure to a wide range of techniques that may not be used
at present in astronomy will give the best kind of cross-
fertilization.
(b) Support should be maintained at a good level
for productive university telescopes. In addition to
being scientifically productive, the best ones are the
test beds for new developments that are difficult to
carry out at National Centers.
(c) Balloon and rocket programs should be main-
tained. In addition to continuing to provide excellent
science return, they are a fine training ground for
graduate student experimentalists.
(d) Some of the Space Shuttle flights should carry
small, short-lead-time experiments that will augment the
balloon and rocket programs.
OCR for page 354
354
We further urge that credit for the development of
observatory instrumentation should be given, especially
in terms of tenure and promotion decisions. A good in-
strument is invaluable if it enhances the productivity of
Such a contribution
the rest of the observatory staff.
warrants acknowledgment.
6. m e Astronomical Community. Teachers at 2- and
4-year colleges, many of whom are not full-time astrono-
mers, make a significant contribution to astronomy educa-
tion in the United States. A survey of 35 participants
in a workshop on effective astronomy teaching (Hoff, 1980
indicates that half of these college faculty do not have
doctorates, and fewer than 10% hold degrees in astronomy
or astrophysics. Approximately half of the Participants
held physics degrees.
Their formal education in astronomy
is slight; 40% had no college course work in astronomy,
and 70% had fewer than 10 semester hours in astronomy.
For most (62~), astronomy makes up less than half of
their teaching load; yet, collectively these 35 people
teach introductory astronomy to more than 3800 students
per year. We estimate that there are at least 600 people
teaching astronomy at 4-year colleges, of which 300 have
astronomy Ph.D.'s. If the faculty surveyed by Hoff are
representative of the remaining 300, they teach introduc-
tory astronomy to more than 30,000 students per year.
There are perhaps 300 people currently engaged in
communicating astronomy to the public via planetaria in
the United States. The annual attendance at planetaria
is many millions, testifying to astronomy's popularity
with the general public.
There are large numbers of amateur astronomers in the
United States. Five organizations of amateurs actively
involved in observing projects [American Association of
Variable Star Observers (AAVSO), American Meteor Society,
Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers, Inter-
national Occultation Timing Association, and Problicom]
have a collective membership of 2260 (Mercury, May-June
1980, p. 80). Tree national organizations of amateur
astronomers, the Astronomical League, the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific, and the Western Amateur Astrono-
mers have memberships of 7000, 5000, and 3000, respec-
tively. While there are undoubtedly some overlapping
memberships, particularly in the larger groups in which
some members may be more active than others, it is clear
that the number of serious amateur astronomers probably
exceeds the number of professionals
OCR for page 355
355
These energetic and enthusiastic observers perform
major services to astronomy. By hosting star parties,
public nights, and similar activities, they help to edu-
cate the general public. The monitoring of variable stars
by amateur astronomers active in the AAVSO provides impor-
tant supplemental data for the work of many professional
astronomers.
With the coming shortages in academic positions more
astronomers will be employed outside astronomy. However'
most of these people will maintain a love for the field
and may even, where possible, carry out limited amounts
of research.
We recommend that research astronomers make efforts to
increase communication with these other astronomers, who
contribute so strongly to the general health of the field.
7. Small Telescopes. Small and medium-sized tele-
scopes, many associated with university departments, are
an important resource for U.S. astronomy. Many important
programs do not require ideal observing conditions. Year-
round availability and scheduling flexibility make pos-
sible long-term survey and continuous-monitoring programs
that cannot easily be carried out at national facilities.
Thanks to proximity to the astronomers and students, these
telescopes are readily available for student training and
research, instrument development, and training of future
experimentalists. Observers using local telescopes exper-
ience less pressure to produce quick, guaranteed results
than do visitors at national facilities, so the former
can risk speculative, innovative observing programs.
Local university telescopes are also a major asset for
public nights and other events that inform the public of
current astronomical discoveries.
We believe that federal support for these telescopes
and associated instrumentation should be awarded on scien-
tific merit, as judged by the peer review system. We urge
proposal referees, the federal funding agencies, and non-
federal sources of financial support to keep in mind also
the many needs served by these facilities.
C. Organization
8 Classified Data and Technology.
.
The continued
advancement of astronomy depends in large part on the
development of technology, including that related to
detectors, structures, antennas, and optics, as well as
OCR for page 356
356
to the processing, analysis, and handling of data (espe-
cially data archiving and retrieval). Some of the tech-
nological challenges now facing astronomy appear similar
to those faced by national security agencies.
Realizing the practical limitations of security clear-
ances and need to know, we recommend that both the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and
the National Science Foundation (NSF) maintain a con-
tinuing awareness of the needs of astronomy and transmit
those needs to the proper government agencies. Some form
of positive feedback is desirable, even on a limited
basis, to assure that consideration of declassification
or utilization proceeds in a positive manner. A suggested
forum for that exchange would be the National Academy of
Sciences and the President's Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
Similarly, data acquired for defense purposes may oc-
casionally contain scientifically useful data that can be
separated from classified data without divulging classi-
fied technology. The key to recognition of that possi-
bility lies with NASA, NSF, and the Department of Defense.
To enhance the probability of discovery of useful, exist-
ing scientific data, we recommend that NASA and NSF estab-
lish mechanisms by which the astronomical community can
participate in the search process.
9. Access to Foreign Space Missions on the Basis of
-
Merit.
It has been the policy of NASA to make its scien-
tific satellites and other flight programs fully acces-
sible to foreign participation on a competitive basis.
NASA's Announcements of Opportunity (AO) are circulated
worldwide, and there are usually numbers of foreign pro-
posals submitted, with some eventually selected for flight
(we are not considering here cooperative NASA-foreign pro-
grams of a joint-project nature, such as the International
Sun Earth Explorer, Hellos, the International Ultraviolet
Explorer, and the Infrared Astronomy Satellite Explorer).
The agreement with the foreign investigator is one of "no
exchange of funds." The cost to NASA is thus primarily one
of integration of the experiment into the spacecraft and
of data acquisition and transmittal to the investigator.
For his or her part, the foreign investigator receives a
flight opportunity and science data at the cost (to the
sponsoring country) of only the experiment plus data
analysis and publication.
The NASA policy is clearly beneficent. It was devel-
oped when the United States and the Soviet Union were
OCR for page 357
357
the only nations with vehicles in space and is certainly
in keeping with the apolitical nature of science. Ide-
ally, the best science gets done, to the ultimate benefit
of all. Changing circumstances in the 1970's--in particu-
lar the increased competition caused by fewer flight
opportunities and higher costs--have caused some members
of the U.S. scientific community to question both the
mechanisms of this policy and the desirability of its
continuation.
However, the Panel believes that opportunities to fly
foreign experiments on U.S. spacecraft have clearly been
of benefit to foreign nations and are, in addition, po-
litically in the best interests of the United States.
They have indeed enabled more total science to be accom-
plished in those cases where the mission constraint has
been budgetary rather than engineering (lower, data, or
.
.
volume, for example); had there been no foreign experi-
ment, that piece of science would not have been done.
In addition to the increased competitive environment,
the major change in the international situation is that
the United States and the Soviet Union no longer monopo-
lize launch capability and satellite activity but have
been joined by the European Space Agency (ESA), by some
_
of its individual members, and by Japan, China, Canada,
and India. In the scientific arena, ESA dominates, but
the activity of Japan is also significant and increasing.
However, none of these solicit experiments from outside
groups. That NASA has no set mechanism (or policy) to
fund such experiments, should one from the United States
be selected, is therefore irrelevant at this moment.
President Carter's space policy (October 11, 1978)
explicitly addressed international cooperation in space
science: "Our policy in international space cooperation
will include two basic elements: (1) to pursue the best
science available regardless of national origin and expand
our international planning and coordinating effort; and
(2) to seek cooperative support for spacecraft experiments
which have been chosen on sound scientific criteria.
This space policy recognizes the value of international
~ ~ _ ~
cooperation, and point (1) reiterates existing NASA pol-
icy. Point (2), however, recognizes the cost of conduct-
ing space research and looks to increasing financial con-
tributions by foreign countries. Simply charging each
participating country a proportion of all costs is one
possible way to increase financial contributions, but the
problem of determining a fair share of the costs and of
maintaining U.S. management control argues against it.
OCR for page 358
358
Instead, it seems better to maintain the current practice
of open AO's and to work with other nations and organiza-
tions to receive reciprocal opportunities. (Oddly enough,
the Soviet Union has flown U.S. experiments "free" to the
United States on its biosatellites, although to date no
Soviet experimenters have proposed for flight through the
AO process.)
We therefore recommend that NASA work to establish the
principle of competitive access to foreign scientific
satellite missions and that NASA institute a policy and
budgetary mechanism designed to encourage the flight of
U.S. experiments on foreign satellites.
10. Peer Review. A persistent concern of the OEP
Panel, and many correspondents, is the adequacy of the
decision-making process within the funding agencies, par-
ticularly NSF and NASA. There are, in fact, two processes
at work. One allocates money within the agency to various
programs. The second, more visible process, allocates
funds within a given program to individual scientists and
research groups through grants and contracts. This second
process is usually conducted through Peer review.
· . ~
Concerns regarding the peer review process have been
widely raised in contexts outside of astronomy (e.g.,
Smith and Karlesky, 1977). A sociological study of its
functioning was reported by Cole et al. (1977). We con-
sidered the concerns of the astronomical community in
light of such broader, more detailed studies and did not
feel it necessary to make detailed studies ourselves.
Our general conclusion is that the Deer review system
works quite well.
Any system for allocating scarce funds
among competing needs is almost certain to generate com-
plaints. We call particular attention to the study by
Cole _ al. (1977), which "yielded little evidence in
support of the main criticisms that have been made of the
peer review system." In this study, 10 of NSF's basic
research programs were scrutinized in detail. Two hundred
and fifty specific research proposals were examined, and
the contents of specific referee's reports (including the
referee's university department) were subjected to a sta-
tistical analysis. In particular, the study invalidated
the "old-boy hypothesis," in which eminent scientists were
presumed to give high ratings to proposals from their emi-
nent colleagues and unfairly low ratings to proposals from
less eminent ones. In fact, the proposals of scientists
from highly ranked departments received higher ratings
from reviewers in low-ranked departments than from review-
OCR for page 359
359
ers in high-ranked departments, and proposals from people
in low-ranked departments were, in general, judged more
reviewers from hinh-ranked departments than
Other studies
of the system are referred to by Lakoff (in Smith and
Karlesky, 1977, Vol. 2, pp. 175-180).
We also encountered two additional criticisms of the
favorably by ~ , _~
by reviewers from low-ranked departments.
peer review system.
One is the length of time and amount
of paperwork required to process a proposal. We support
any measures that can be taken to streamline these proce-
dures but realize that increased requirements of account-
ability are circumstances beyond the direct control of the
astronomical community (Staats, 1979).
Also of concern is the temptation to slant research in
favor of projects certain to produce immediate results,
rather than projects involving greater uncertainty or
risk. Even in the cases of innovative proposals, it is
hard for an agency program director to fund a project
that goes against the currently accepted dogma reflected
by the opinions of referees. Yet it is precisely this
sort of hunch that has given us the most productive
millimeter-wave telescope in the world. It is particu-
larly difficult to fund such projects in times of funding
shortages.
We do recognize the extreme importance of supporting
good projects that promise results only far in the future.
Gravitational-wave astronomy, currently supported at a
modest level by NSF, is an example of such a project. We
remind agencies and their program directors that support
of innovative and unusual ideas is important to the long-
term future of astronomy, even if the short-range payoffs
seem relatively small.
Other comments regarding the peer review system empha-
size the importance of a dialogue between the proposer and
the referees after submission of proposals, particularly
when instrumental proposals are under review. A proposal
cannot include all the relevant details without being
unreasonably long, and so it is useful to have some mech-
anism by which referees' questions can be addressed. Pro-
gram officers within the agencies appear to be sensitive
to this need and responsive to problems that arise within
particular programs. There is also a need for dialogue
when a proposal has been turned down and the proposer
wants to be reconsidered. We note that there are oppor-
tunities for appeal within the agencies, although such
appeals are not often successful.
Yet another concern, often voiced by people in smaller
OCR for page 360
360
institutions, is the perception that funding is limited
to large, well-known institutions. This perception is
incorrect, as discussed above. The main problem, rather,
is ignorance of the mechanics of proposal preparation.
The AAS newsletter contains much of the information needed
by someone seeking funding. The system is open; if an
astronomer at a small college wants to propose and has a
good project in mind, initiative is all that is required.
Program officers will provide the necessary information
for proposers, but the initiative must come from the
individual scientist.
m e second, but less visible, process that signifi-
cantly affects astronomy is the allocation of funds within
programs. The successful functioning of this process, and
the larger question regarding allocation of funds within
the funding agencies as a whole (where astronomy is only
a fraction of each agency's budget), depends strongly on
the ability of individual agency scientists to present the
case for their own programs effectively and forcefully.
The community needs to remain aware of the existence of
this second process and to provide appropriate support.
Of central importance in this connection is the quality
of scientists working for the funding agencies. m e OEP
Panel calls attention to
scientists to work for a
of time under provisions
nel Act. The welfare of
the opportunities for individual
funding agency for a short period
of the Intergovernmental Person-
the entire community depends
critically on the abilities of agency astronomers in
Washington.
11. Advice to NASA and_NSF. Our recommendations are
that (1) the agency that funds a "mission" should take
particular care that it fund adequate analysis of all of
the meaningful data; (2) agencies should identify the
mutual impact of new programs before those programs are
initiated and take appropriate action.
12. Private and State Support. A considerable frac-
tion of the financial support of astronomy is provided by
private and state funds. Increasing such support is
clearly beneficial for the field; the question is: How?
Different situations demand different approaches. In
almost all cases, communication with the general public
is part of the answer. Public discussion of the successes
of individual institutions can help stimulate others and
can provide ideas regarding possible approaches in any
one institution.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
astronomical community
