A Shadow on the Smithsonian

For 111 years, the Smithsonian Astrophysics Observatory has fought to discover the universe’s deepest, darkest secrets. From discovering the Great Wall of galaxies to documenting the expanding universe to tracking early satellites, the observatory has been at the center of American understanding and exploration of space. But now, the institution is fighting for its very survival.

A proposal put forth by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would shift $20 million from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, of which the Smithsonian Observatory is a major component, to the National Science Foundation. The money goes towards the observatory’s staff salaries and equipment, and the cuts would severely jeopardize the observatory’s ability to conduct meaningful, ongoing scientific research.

The federal government currently pays for the Smithsonian Observatory’s permanent infrastructure—salaries, building upkeep and equipment maintenance. The observatory then competes for outside grants to finance specific projects. But if the OMB proposal were adopted, the observatory could lose the funding to keep its scientists and equipment—an onerous and undesirable situation for an institution whose first priority should be innovative research, not cutthroat bureaucracy.

The Bush Administration has argued that shifting this funding from the Smithsonian to the National Science Foundation would foster a more competitive review process. But the scientists who work at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center already compete for funding for their projects; the proposed change would routinely place the basic infrastructure of the observatory in jeopardy.

For many of the same reasons it makes sense for a university to tenure professors, it makes sense for the Smithsonian Observatory to retain scientists to conduct research on a long-term basis. Some of the greatest breakthroughs in science have come from serendipitous discoveries in initially unrelated lines of research. Research that at first appears to have little short-term benefit can yield incredible gains over time. Additionally, the Smithsonian Observatory’s superb record over the last century supports the argument that the observatory’s independence is part of the reason for its continued success.

The administration’s call to shift funding away from the observatory would carry more weight were Congress ever dissatisfied with the program’s performance. Instead, however, many members of Congress have taken up the observatory’s cause. Thirty-two representatives have signed a letter to protect the center’s funding. We hope that they will be able to block the proposed change and to preserve the independence that has made the Smithsonian Observatory an invaluable scientific asset.