He made it clear, nonetheless, that all corners of Federal funding will come under greater and continued scrutiny. Institutions and programs large and small will be held to higher standards of strong business management practices, he said.
He called the new approach an inevitable result of the evolution of how science is funded in the post-Cold War era.
Marburger said recent budget scares that have worried researchers at universities and organizations from NASA to the venerable Smithsonian Institution are all part of an effort by Bush to force better funding choices based on scientific bang for the buck.
The White House Office of Management and Budget had recently floated an idea that would have transferred the Smithsonian to the National Science Foundation, where its fate would have been uncertain.
Marburger said there was never a firm proposal to do that.
Bush committed to basic research
Marburger, a scientist himself, was not gloomy. He said the Bush administration is committed to basic scientific research, including astronomy, even if the projected rewards would be intellectual and not necessarily beneficial to the economy or to society at large.
"I think discovery itself is a noble thing, and worth it," Marburger said. "We shouldn't be ashamed to say that what we're about is discovering things."
He said the science community missed the point in the Administration's recent challenges to basic research funding.
"We insist on knowing why we're making an investment," Marburger said. He added that the American people would expect "a hard-nosed approach" to managing any endeavor, scientific or otherwise, that is funded with Federal money.
"The President is not afraid to shake things up" in order to force a change from business as usual, he said.
Specifically, astronomers and all scientists can expect a world in which peer review takes on a stronger role in shaping who gets federal funds. Already, much of science operates on a peer-review basis, where panels of colleagues decide which projects deserve funding.
Marburger said it is not the President's intention to delve into the nitty gritty of each funding decision. Those choices should be left to science advisory panels, he said, some of which may yet to be created from discussions that are currently going on.
Marburger stated the obvious in noting that Bush does not read scientific journals, such as Nature or Science. But the President does make a point of informing himself of science topics on an as-needed basis, he said.
"He understands that it's important for the United States to continue leadership in basic science," he said of Bush. "But he wants to know why we do what we do, and he deserves an answer."
A friend in high places?
Marburger touted his experience in running science and educational institutions and offered himself up as a "broker" between astronomers and the White House.
He is the former director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory and was president of the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has a Ph.D. in Applied Physics from Stanford University.
No one high up in the Bush Administration is more steeped in science than John Marburger, he said. And no science advisor is higher up than he is.
But when asked by SPACE.com how often he speaks directly with Bush, he replied: "President Bush and I don't sit around and talk about cosmology or quantum field theory. I tend to see him in meetings with others."
If Marburger has his way, no major area of space science would be cut significantly at the expense of another. But all aspects would be reviewed on a continuing basis. Ground-based astronomy and more costly space-based telescopes both have roles to play, he said. Robotic and human exploration should both continue.
He did not say whether overall space science funding would grow. That, he said, depends largely on the ability of astronomers to make their cases for each research proposal.
The tense ISS situation
Many critics say billions of dollars would be available for space research instantly if they were simply shifted from the Space Station. While Marburger was critical of the Station's failed management, he cited the enormous investment already made as a reason to continue funding it.
"It would be a scandal if that investment were not exploited," he said.
European partners, meanwhile, have criticized the U.S. for hinting that it might scale back funding.
Is the White House concerned?
"Of course we're concerned," he said. "But we're also concerned about the project. The project needs help."
He said it will be very difficult, however, to determine the true costs involved in finishing the station and keeping it running, a management goal he said had created "a very tense situation." Meanwhile, he's talking with the international partners to be sure they understand that the U.S. is working to find solutions. He did not allude to what those solutions might be.
"If we can't get our arms around the management problems of the Space Station, much greater dangers could occur in the future than we face now," he said.
advertisement
