Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, July 5, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Merger of U.S. earth science agencies proposed

by CTV

Reposted from:http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080704/earth_agencies_080704/20080704?hub=World

Merger of U.S. earth science agencies proposed

WASHINGTON -- From climate change to volcanoes and earthquakes, the world's growing challenges have leaders in earth science proposing a merger of agencies that study the planet.

Creation of a new Earth Systems Science Agency is urged in this week's edition of the journal Science, by merging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Included in the group making the proposal are former heads of both agencies as well as others who have held science policy positions in government.

"The United States faces unprecedented environmental and economic challenges in the decades ahead. Foremost among them will be climate change, sea-level rise, altered weather patterns, declines in freshwater availability and quality and loss of biodiversity," the group warned.

D. James Baker, NOAA administrator from 1993 to 2001, said the group felt the divided responsibilities among agencies made it harder to get things done.

"We felt that laying this (idea) on the table would have a lot of positive aspects," said Baker, who now works on deforestation concerns with the Clinton Foundation.

With a $4 billion budget and 12,000 employees, NOAA, a part of the Commerce Department, studies the atmosphere and oceans. USGS, part of the Interior Department, with a $1 billion budget and 8,500 workers, focuses on fresh water and the Earth, including such threats as volcanoes and earthquakes, and has a biological arm.

The group proposing the new agency had long been concerned that science programs that are part of regulatory or management agencies tend to be downplayed at budget time, said Charles Groat, a former director of the Geological Survey and now interim dean of geosciences at the University of Texas.

"Given the challenges the country faces in the environment and energy," he said, the two agencies could make a significant contribution to science, he said.

And the combined agency would provide a strong group on behalf of science, he said, working in collaboration with the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and National Institutes of Health.

Creation of the new agency also would revive the name ESSA. Before 1970, NOAA was known as the Environmental Science Services Administration.

In addition to Groat and Baker, signing the proposal were Mark Schaefer, former acting director of the Geological Survey; former White House science adviser John H. Gibbons; Donald Kennedy, Food and Drug Administration commissioner from 1977 to 1979; Charles F. Kennel, former associate administrator of NASA and director of its Mission to Planet Earth, and David Rajeski, who formerly served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council on Environmental Quality.

Comments 1 - 7 of 7 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #204587 by tahustvedt on July 5, 2008 at 9:59 am

 avatarSounds like a good thing for understanding of the climate.

I have been sceptical about the maturity of climate science because there are so many individual fields of science that need to be understood to have a reliable theory.

Other Comments by tahustvedt

2. Comment #204606 by MorituriMax on July 5, 2008 at 10:55 am

 avatarI don't know.. anytime the Government merges agencies you usually get a total drop in efficiency.

Other Comments by MorituriMax

3. Comment #204641 by bluebird on July 5, 2008 at 12:27 pm

 avatarThanks for posting this article, hadn't heard about it.

This proposal sounds very good, and I've a feeling it could work. Another article quotes: "It isn't often we are offered a real opportunity to make government work better. But the modest, sensible reorganization proposed here brings a new science-rich focus on some of our biggest contemporary challenges".

An aside, a few nice photos from recent Ocean Conservancy magazine:
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=photoContestWinners

Other Comments by bluebird

4. Comment #204748 by robotaholic on July 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

 avatarYou know that young earth creationists would love to get ahold of this and warp everything to hell

Other Comments by robotaholic

5. Comment #204774 by Border Collie on July 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Could be good except that it would make it easier for another Bush-like administration to interfere with real science.

Other Comments by Border Collie

6. Comment #204911 by Buddha on July 6, 2008 at 7:04 am

 avatarOn the face of it, this seems to be an eminently sensible idea. It's only through a holistic systems approach that we can come close to begin understanding the dynamics of our planet.

The danger is that such mergers have a tendency to be a front for budget cuts.

Other Comments by Buddha

7. Comment #205870 by King of NH on July 7, 2008 at 8:36 pm

 avatarThis does smell of budget cuts, but the truth is that these budgets have been getting cut. By pooling their resources, the agencies can work together to make strides visible and supportable by the tax-payers, ensuring better budgets by public will.

Ideally, I would like to see them remain separate and duke it out in REAL science, may the best brain discover the most. But since science is under such an attack in this country, I think it would be best to circle the wagons and win one battle at a time.

Other Comments by King of NH
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: