--------------------------
2. A SPACE PHYSICS PARADOX
--------------------------
From: D. J. Williams, APL/JHU (djw@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu) 

The National Research Council recently issued a report on Space
Physics entitled "A Space Physics Paradox: Why Has Increased 
Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the 
Conduct of Space Physics Research?".  This note summarizes the 
report's findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The report was authored by the National Academy of 
Sciences/National Research Council's Committee on Solar-
Terrestrial Research (CSTR) and Committee on Solar and Space 
Physics (CSSP).  These Committees provide advice to government 
agencies in the subdisciplines of solar physics, heliospheric 
physics, cosmic rays, magnetospheric physics, ionospheric 
physics, upper atmospheric physics, aeronomy, and solar-
terrestrial physics.  The two committees meet jointly as a 
federated committee and report directly to their parent 
National Academy Boards, the Board on Atmospheric Science and 
Climate for CSTR and the Space Studies Board for CSSP.

Members and staff of the federated CSTR/CSSP when the report 
was researched and written (1990-1992) are listed below;

Committee on                -and-  Committee on
Solar-Terrestrial Research         Solar and Space Physics

Donald J. Williams, Chair          Marcia Neugebauer, Chair
Alan C. Cummings                   Thomas E. Cravens
Gordon Emslie                      Jonathan F. Ormes
David C. Fritts                    George K. Parks
Rolando R. Garcia                  Douglas M. Rabin
Margaret G. Kivelson               David M. Rust
David J. McComas                   Raymond J. Walker
Eugene N. Parker                   Yuk L. Yung
James F. Vickrey                   Ronald D. Zwickl
William Sprigg                     Richard Hart

The genesis of the report lay in the recent escalating discussion 
on the process and adequacy of research funding in the United 
States.  Strong opinions have been voiced concerning the 
relationships and relative merits of issues such as big science 
versus little science, centers of excellence versus individual 
initiative, and directed research versus unconstrained research.
Intimately related to this debate is a strong perception that 
U.S. research capabilities have steadily eroded in spite of 
substantive increases in the research budget.

Because this same debate flourishes in the scientific fields served
by the CSTR/CSSP, the Committee felt it appropriate to address the 
issues involved and, like the Lederman Report, sought to answer the 
basic paradox behind their existence:

   Why has increased research funding been accompanied by decreased
   effectiveness in the conduct of space physics research ?

The accumulated data and findings presented in this report can be
embodied in four broad conclusions:

1) The effectiveness of the base-funded space physics research 
program has decreased over the past decade.

2) Factors such as planning, marketing, the funding process, and 
project management have become as responsible for the increased 
delays, costs, and frustration levels in space physics as technical 
complications related to increasing project size and complexity.

3) The long-term trend that has led to an ever-increasing reliance 
on large programs has decreased the productivity of space physics 
research.

4) The funding agencies and the space physics community have not 
clearly articulated priorities and developed strategies for 
achieving them, despite the fact that the rapid growth of the filed 
has exceeded available resources.

Based on these conclusions, the committee makes four interrelated
recommendations aimed at policymakers, funders, and the space 
physics research community. The committee believes that 
implementation of these recommendations could greatly increase the 
amount of productive research accomplished per dollar spent and 
reduce the level of frustration expressed by many space physics 
researchers without any overall increase in funding.

1) The scientific community and the funding agencies must work 
together to increase the proportionate size and stability of the 
base-funded research program.

2) The funding agencies should ensure the availability of many more
experimental opportunities by shifting the balance toward smaller
programs, even if this necessitates a reduction in the number of 
future large programs.

3) In anticipation of an era of limited resources, the space physics
community must establish realistic priorities across the full 
spectrum of its scientific interests, encompassing both large- and 
small-scale activities.

4) The management and implementation processes for the space physics
research program should be streamlined.

These four recommendations are highly interrelated. Streamlined 
management processes will further boost the productivity of a 
stabilized core program. Priority setting will enable the few 
critical big science projects to be pursued without jeopardizing 
ongoing research. Taken together, we believe these recommendations 
provide a blueprint for a stronger, more productive space physics 
research community.

Copies of the report can be obtained from
  Dr. William Sprigg 
  National Research Council
  Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
  2101 Constitution Ave NW   
  Washington DC 20418-0001