report
observed AppiT©«e0hJ5d#bRele^ 20
erred in not notifying congressional com-
A
mittecs of its intent to purchase the col-
r,
„
, M
lection of the Cooper Union museum
rwp
=V"
even though that was done with privately
^ M
raised money
. Stevens also thought Con-
gress should have been
in on the pur-
chase,
particularly
since,
as
it
turned
Origina
out, some
federal
appropriations were
required for operations and construction
where
the
in
(total
federal
contributions
have
been
Virtually all o
about $1.5 million). Smithsonian officials
arc also curat
seem to have felt that the way they han-
collections ar
died the purchase was
all
right since
it
1 he astr ophy
had the approval of the Regents, six of
the majouty
whom are members of Congress.
ment
contra*
Just what the Regents can approve on
labs: the Che
their own has not been cleared up. For
vironmental
,
example,
Stevens
appeared
to
be
reau for mar
alarmed upon learning that the Smithso-
Radiation Bi
nian could—in
theory,
if not
in
prac-
land; the
fri
tice—dispose of its research institute on
Panama; and
the Chesapeake Bay (a private acquisi-
Challinor
<
tion)
without
congressional
sanction,
entists do w
“These must become federal properties
to get resear
if we are to continue to fund them with
federal taxpayers’ dollars,” he opined. ^jbmhM
Although
the Smithsonian’s top
offi-
cials claim
to be unruffled by the
criti-
Ws
cism, one official told Science that there
is considerable concern that Congress is
|
A litt
going to try to “federalize” the institu-
(ACDA
tion.
Federalization,
says
another, H
ACDA
would result in the termination of adven- 9
country
turous,
public-oriented
activities
(such
fl
ments.
as the annual Folklife Festival and the I
capabil
magazine)
that arc supported with
pri- I
believe
vate funds; would result in the subordi-
j|
firmatic
nation of artistic and scholarly judgment
In
in
to politics; and would constrict research.
111.), lir
Officials
also
claim a change
in
status
I
more
‘
would violate the trust of many private
marsin
donors who have made gifts with the un-
B
ably
oi
demanding that the Smithsonian was a
fl
effecth
nonfederal institution.
H
pointe*
However uneasy Congress may
feel
misutu
about
the
Smithsonian’s
independent
graded
ways,
there
have been few
questions
The
raised about the quality of the museum’s
Warnk
collections or of the institution's core of
perfor
research and scholarly endeavor.
fl
ties of
The Smithsonian’s scientific establish-
Liber;
ment,
which
includes
300
Ph.D. -level
would
scientists, enjoys a solid reputation and,
harass
according to assistant secretary for sci-
to lent
ence David Challinor, the institution
is
The
“fully competitive with universities” as
ence
,
an employer,
Warnl
Smithsonian science is best known for
the ag
its
strength
in
systematics,
which
is
in a
founded on the collection of the Museum
ment’
of Natural
History,
and
astrophysics,
too
n
which
is done
at
the Smithsonian As-
make!
trophysical
Laboratory
in
Cambridge,
conse
Mass., and
at
Mt.
Hopkins,
Arizona,
: CIA-RDP
Original Smithsonian building
where
the
institution
has a
telescope.
Virtually all of the 106 museum scientists
arc also curators who do research on the
collections and go on frequent field trips.
The astrophysical lab has 100 scientists,
the majority of whom work on govern-
ment
contracts. The
rest
are
at
other
labs: the Chesapeake Bay Center for En-
vironmental Studies, the Fort Pierce Bu-
reau for marine research in Florida; the
Radiation Biology Laboratory in Mary-
land; the Tropical Research Institute in
Panama; and the National Zoo.
Challinor claims that Smithsonian sci-
entists do well by any measure—ability
to get research money, publications, and
Academy of Sciences. There are, in fact,
ten NAS members in addition to Ripley
himself (whose election
is regarded by
some
as an
honorific gesture, more
in
recognition of his position than the quali-
ty of his research), and the late astrono-
mer Donald Menzel. The astrophysical
lab’s
current
director,
George
Field,
turned down
membership
a
couple
of
years ago
to
protest
the
fact
that
the
NAS still takes on classified research.
The
institution
however,
gives
the
impression of being something of an ivory
tower because so much of its work
is in
basic research.
It has, for instance, been
monitoring
ultraviolet
solar
radiation
since 1909—long before people generally
recognized the purpose of such a study.
“Only the Smithsonian is crazy enough
to do
a nonsexy
long term
thing
like
this,” says Challinor.
Science absorbs about $40 million of
the total annual budget of about $120 mil-
Warnke Stuck with Verification Task
A little-noticed amendment to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
(ACDA) authorization bill that passed the House on 3 May would require
ACDA director Paul C. Warnke to file “timely” reports to Congress on the
country’s
ability to verify
all existing and proposed arms control agree-
ments. He would also have to notify Congress of any “degradation
in that
capability. But the motives and likely impact of the amendment are widely
believed to signify further hard going for Mr. Warnke, whose Senate con-
firmation nearly foundered on charges he was too “soft.
.
In introducing the amendment,
its sponsor, Edward
J. Derwinski (R
III.)
limited his explanation to a few colorless comments about the need tor
more "effective” verification reporting to the Congress. But Robert Lago-
marsino (R-Calif.), rising to support the amendment, spoke what was pro
-
ably on many of the congressmen’s minds. He noted Warnke s decision,
effective days before, to abolish the ACDA Verification Bureau
and, in a
pointed disagreement, said the amendment was needed
so that thei e is no
misunderstanding in anyone’s mind that the United States has not down-
graded the importance of verification.
The amendment’s impact, some congressional
liberals
fear, could put
_
Warnke into conflict with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which now
performs verification on several treaties, coordinates the verification activi-
ties of other intelligence agencies, and reports on the subject to ConS'e ss -
Liberals further fear that the lengthy, exhaustive ACDA .epoits which
would be required on all arms control proposals could be used by his foes to
harass Warnke, whose past statements on verification issues were subjected
to lengthy, hostile cross-examination during the confirmation battle.
The amendment is given some chance of surviving House-Senate confer-
ence since the House passed
it by a hefty margin of 259 to
148, and since
Warnke and ACDA are lying low on the subject.
The Director feels that
the agency can do the job if the Congress so wishes,” says an agency official
in
a
less-than-hair-raising comment. ACDA appaiently
sees
the *
ment’s language as sufficiently vague that
it could comply without creating
too much of a
stir.
But whatever difference the amendment eventually
makes, at the moment it indicates the hair-trigger sensitivity of congressional
conservatives to Warnkc’s every move.
D.S.
^
20 MAY
1977
r-ovad Epr