Anthropology News February 2003 P U B L I C A F F A I R S

“Smithsonian science is facing the most critical time in its 156-year history,” according to a report released Jan 7 by the Smithsonian Science Com- mission, chaired by Jeremy A Sabloff, director of the U of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Anthropologists Yolanda T Moses, president of the American Association for Higher Education, and William W Fitzhugh, di- rector of the Smithsohian Arctic Studies Center, also serve on the Commission.

While the Commission highhghted the irre- placeable collections (about 124 million items at the National Museum of Natural History), unri- valed physical facilities and extensive resources at the Smithsonian that can be brought to bear on science issues, it still stressed that “without in- spired leadership and careful strategic planning, [Smithsonian science] might slip-like a building without maintenance-into a state of mediocrity from which it will be hard to recover.” To lead to significant improvements in Smithsonian sci- ence, the Commission offered 76 recommenda- tions focusing on leadership, structure, perform- ance evaluation, educatiop, outreach, budget and implementation.

Funding The most significarlt problem facing Smithso- nian science, according to the Commission, is funding. To solve this challenge, the Commission recommended that the Smithsonian increase its efforts to find private and foundation funding for its scientific activities. It also called on the insti- tution to work with Congress to obtain direct fed- eral funding for scientific research and to increase the Smithsonian’s base funding to fully cover mandated annual salary increases that have forced the institution to “cannibalize” staff posi- tions, using salary from vacant positions to pay for obligatory salary increases. This has con- tributed to the loss of some 30 curators at the Natural History Museum during the past decade. The need to work with the NSF to make sure all Smithsonian researchers may apply for NSF fund- ing also was cited. This is significant, as Smithsonian scientists have not been allowed to compete directly for NSF funding because they are federal employees.

The Smithsonian is in a particularly difficult bind as a research organization. Because it is not a university, the Smithsonian lacks an influx of graduate students working toward advanced degrees or in postdoctoral fellowship programs. Moreover, most fellowship programs bringing younger scientists and scholars into the museum have been cut or eliminated. These have been designated as priorities for the institution.

Leadership Following the erosion of funding support, the “lack of effective, long-term leadership” has been the largest cause of the weakening of Smithso-

nian science, according to the report. “There is no way you can have consistent visionary leadership of a key national resource when you have 11 directors in 22 years,“ Sabloff said of the Natural History Museum.

“To facilitate planning, communications and performance assessment,” the report also recom- mended that Smithsonian scientists “be detailed on a temporary, rotating basisas Special Scientific Advisors“ to the Smithsonian Under Secretary of Science. It also was suggested that mechanisms be developed to engage scientists in the planning and management of science.

Vision for Research Research is “the backbone of science at the Smithsonian,” wrote the Commission. The im- portance of the Smithsonian’s research, especial- ly research based on its unsurpassed collections, was illustrated by Sabloff in presenting the exam- ple of a recent study of the influenza pandemic of 1918, which used bird specimens from the Smithsonian collection. Today, however, the public does not predominantly recognize the Smithsonian for such research: “Fifty years ago when you said the Smithsonian, [people] would have thought of science and research,” said Sabloff. “Instead, you think today of the muse- ums and exhibits and public programs.”

This perception is traced to the 1960s. Funding for more than 10 museums founded since the 1950s have eroded funding for Smithsonian sci- ence. “The levels of erosion were quite surprising and we think in many cases even devastating,” said Sabloff. It has been estimated by an official cited in the Washington Post that research accounted for $111 million of the institution’s $519 million federal appropriation for 2002. So the goal now, says the Commission, should

be to integrate Smithsonian research, education and public outreach by including scientists in the crafting of exhibitions and to base public pro- grams, including Web-based learning, on a solid scientific footing. In carrying out this goal, the Commission called for a focus on four core sci- entific pursuits-the origin and nature of the uni- verse, the formation and evolution of the earth and similar planets, discovering and understand- ing life‘s diversity, and the study of human diver- sity and culture change. This vision was defined as Science Smithsonian.

After looking at the seven Smithsonian science units, the Commission concluded that “visionary leadership, tightening program operation and selective cross-cutting hold the greatest promise.” It did not recommend any specific closures or ter- minations, finding that “there is little evidence“ that Smithsonian scientists were “carrying out unnecessary, inefficient or rdundant work.” In general, the report called for strengthening, not closing, research facilities.

While science was the principal aeivity of the Smithsonian for more than a century, today many perceive the institution as a collection of art and cultural museums, rather than as a research organ- ization. This shift, according to a Commission re- port, can be detrimental to the Smithsonian as a whole, as it undermines the reputation on which its public programs have been built.

However, the Commission did state that the Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education (SCMRE), which had been slated for closure in spring 2001 by Smithsonian Secretary Small, should focus on its core mission of conser- vation research, better coordinate its activities with conservators at all Smithsonian museums and move some of its scientists to the National Museum of Natural History’s anthropology department. The Commission also opened the possibility that the institution’s Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, VA, which also had been slated for closure before public out- cry, would have to be closed in five years if out- side funding is not found. The CRC studies ways to preserve endangered species.

Implementation The Smithsonian’s Board of Regents, which re- viewed the report, expressed its “total support” for the Commission’s work and findings. The Commission called upon the Board to establish a three-year benchmark period for the report.

Smithsonian Under Secretary of Science David L Evans said, “With the Regents’ assent to the report, I anticipate putting an implementation plan in place in the near future.” He indicated there is “reason for optimism” that some of the reports’ recommendations will be seen in the budget as early as 2004. The Commission stated the under secretary should create a plan by 2003 for carrying out all of the Commission’s recom- mendations, and that this plan should be imple- mented, through the Scientific Directors Council, which comprises the heads of each major science unit, and reviewed yearly by a distinguished Visiting Committee.

Sabloff expressed hope that this report would lead to broad changes within the Smithsonian: “None of us wanted to spend the 15 months we did to find the report put in a certain file which, as you know, in Washington has happened on a few occasions.’’

The full text of the Science Commission’s report is available at www.smithsonian.org/ sciencecommission.

28