THE CRISES IN PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMY
ARA Update....ARA Update....ARA Update....ARA Update....ARA Update

Update No. 11: 6/7/95

Association of Research Astronomers Position Paper

THE CRISES IN PROFESSIONAL ASTRONOMY

BASIC PREMISE: With serious, deep budget cuts and a collapsing job market, professional astronomy has reached a defining crossroads. Since what we do in response to this crisis will have far reaching impact, we must be careful to insure that what action is taken is clearly thought out. In this regard, we have some concerns about the directions that current policy is taking us.

NASA's emphasis is currently shifting from observatories to PI missions and from open and competitive bidding for science support to `university centers'. At the same time, NSF is shifting support from a national optical observatory and vigorous individual grants program to the support of telescope consortia. These shifts signify a potentially dangerous change from the diversity of free and open competition to one favoring a limited number of institutions large enough to support PI missions or with financial resources needed join a telescope consortium.

We believe that these shifts in policy by our major funding agencies contain a potential for damaging the general health of U.S. astronomy for the following reasons:

  1. STIFLED COMPETITION: Funding allocated in blocks to PI missions, science centers, and telescope consortia means that less money will be available for free and open competition by the general professional community. The impact of this shift in policy will be to seriously inhibit the ability of many professionals to compete.

    Result: The flourishing of new ideas that competition encourages will be suppressed.

  2. INEFFICIENCY: As a matter of history, it has not been the practice of PI missions or consortia to produce open and easily assessable data archives. What ever the reason, the lack of incentive for prompt publication or dissemination of results curtails the ability to place new data into context with existing data.

    Result: Data obtained with public funds will be underutilized.

  3. DEGRADATION OF THE QUALITY OF THE PROFESSION: The current proposed policies will hinder access to research resources for many qualified working astronomers who do not reside at institutions achieving 'center' status. (By access, we are not referring to some sort of special program, but rather the simple ability to compete on a level playing field.) The problem is especially acute for professionals whose primary responsibilities are teaching or project support. Participating in viable and active research is essential for such individuals to maintain and update their professional skills, thus enabling them to perform their major functions with maximum efficiency and the highest professional standards. Without access to competitive research, it will become more difficult for smaller colleges, universities, and private industry to provide the incentives necessary to attract and retain quality individuals wishing to remain abreast of their discipline. In short, it is simply that scientists must do science.

    Result: The overall quality of teaching and support work will suffer, attacking the very foundation of our profession.

  4. RESTRICTED SCIENTIFIC GROWTH: When scientific policy and resources fall exclusively into the hands of a few small groups without a system of checks and balances, the resulting science can become captive to the (parochial) interests of a few individuals or groups.

    Result: The loss of diversity means that the breadth and scope of the general scientific enterprise will suffer.

    Conclusion

    There is a potential for current policy shift by the major funding organizations to have a detrimental impact on most of the AAS membership by restricting their ability to maintain their professional acuity at the highest level. For astronomers whose major responsibility is teaching, this could act to curtail their enthusiasm, impacting those individuals on the other side of the lectern. For those whose major effort is project work, this policy shift could mean a loss of impetus and ability to remain current, making the high level of informed professional support that their positions require difficult to obtain. Furthermore, data obtained with public funds are in danger of being under utilization -- a possibility which would inhibit the diversity of our science and seriously limit its scope.

    What the AAS Can (and Should) Do

    Currently, NASA's primary source for policy advice is the     National Academy of Sciences, while NSF relies The National Science Board , and the Academy.

    These groups perform a necessary and legitimate service, providing a forum for some of the greatest astronomical minds to focus the attention and resources of the field upon some of the more perplexing problems facing us. However, such committees are, quite naturally, susceptible to viewing the field from their own perspectives which may not be to the benefit of the majority of U.S. astronomers. Since policy decisions by funding agencies are typically based upon the dictums of such committees, these decisions have a direct impact on the ability of all U.S. astronomers to practice their profession.

    We believe that it is important for the AAS leadership to take an active role in reviewing all policy statements made by such committees and to assess their impact upon the rank-and-file astronomer. The AAS is the only voice for the majority of U.S. astronomers and is, therefore, obliged to speak to the concerns of its membership. We believe that the AAS must become a more proactive organization, forming and disseminating opinions representative of its members.

    Specific Examples

    The AAS should communicate directly with the major funding agencies and make the membership aware of the formation, composition and meetings of policy making panels. This will promote open discussion of the impact of policy recommendations before they are finalized.

    The AAS should provide input and guidance to policy making committees to increase their awareness of the impact of their decisions on the astronomical community as a whole, thus bringing a fresh perspective to the policy making process.

    The AAS should review the recommendations of policy making committees with a view toward their impact on the general membership, and communicate their assessments to the heads of the appropriate funding agencies and the membership.

    The above items represent a concise and manageable service that we believe the AAS should provide for its membership. As necessary first step, the AAS should familiarize itself with exactly who comprises the membership. We recommend the AAS provide each member with a short general information 'questionnaire' soliciting such things as education/job status, affiliation, highest degree, age, etc. This questionnaire should be made as simple as possible and could be distributed via the normal AAS e-mail exploder. Another option to increase response is to provide a concise 1 page machine-readable 'check-a-box' card which could be distributed with the dues invoices. We are willing to help with this process.

    The urgency of these recommendations is underscored by NASA Headquarters' open appeal for input on how NASA funded science should be restructured (26 May 1995, Science, 268, 1122). While individuals should certainly respond to this solicitation, they cannot possibly convey the authoritative impact that a statement from the officers of our recognized professional organization would. Action must be taken and taken quickly before policies which affect all working astronomers are enacted on the basis of incomplete information.

    ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH ASTRONOMERS

    Derck L. Massa
    Applied Research Corp.

    Jason A. Cardelli
    Villanova University