Environmental agencies: lessons learned.

Previous attempts to establish an independent, science-based, environmentally focused federal research agency, including the National Biological Survey and the National Institute for the Environment, have ended in failure. Now we are treated to calls for “An Earth systems science agency” (M. Schaefer et al. , Policy Forum, 4 July, p. 44). Not surprisingly, the same objectives are being discussed: the need for a response-driven, flexible, interdisciplinary agency and the current poor organization, collaboration, and funding among existing agencies. This is undoubtedly true, but creating an umbrella superagency will not fix federal research programs. In the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), biological research has been treated as a poor stepchild to the earth sciences, and there is little doubt this will continue in the Earth Systems Science Agency (ESSA). Funding has been cut or shunted to administration; talented researchers have been drowned in paperwork, micromanaged, politicized, and subject to inept and incompetent leadership; and collaboration has become more difficult. It is ironic that some authors of the ESSA proposal oversaw procedures that have crippled biological research in USGS. Changing the name and organization will not correct problems in federal natural science and environmental research. Unless the command and control mindset is lifted to free the creative energies of its scientists, federal science agencies will continue to lose their most valuable assets, scientists, as frustration and lack of support take a toll. Until scientists are recognized as valuable assets rather than full-time equivalents, the ESSA will be outmoded before the 10 years it takes to quell the administrative bickering. # Response {#article-title-2} There maybe some truth in what C. K. Dodd writes, but history gives us important counterexamples. The creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1970 from existing agencies has led to better and stronger oceanic and atmospheric science, more applications, the sharing of a Nobel Prize, and numerous scientific awards. Today, there is a much stronger public and congressional awareness of environmental issues than at the time of the reorganizations he mentions. Of course, not all of the bureaucracy, micromanagement, and command and control issues can be solved at once, and it is important to note that biology has been an equal partner in the problem faced by the entire U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—a science organization in a budget-challenged management organization that has priorities other than science. We prefer to look on the positive side. The creation of an Earth Systems Science Agency (ESSA) provides the context to bring together synergistic subjects and researchers in an agency with a mission to provide societal benefits. We believe that this new context allows many, if not all, of the issues Dodd raises to be dealt with in an effective way so that researchers can prosper. We have also emphasized the need for at least 25% of the agency's budget to be provided to grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with academic and nonprofit institutions, in coordination with the National Science Foundation. It will be important that grant funding decisions are made in a forum where considerations from all parts of earth system science can be balanced. Outreach and links with outside institutions should also help the internal structure. With respect to the biological sciences, ESSA would allow biodiversity and related issues to be examined in the context of both terrestrial and marine systems. Furthermore, ecosystem-based research and monitoring would be advanced by integrating atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, and freshwater biological and physical science programs. Finally, although Dodd focuses on research, we note that our Policy Forum proposed a broader range for the new institution, reflecting the missions of both NOAA and USGS in research, monitoring, communication, and decision support systems that inform policy-making and guide implementation. This broader mission benefits from the proposed reorganization and gives a framework in which research can be more easily facilitated ([1][1]). [1]: #fn-1