The following article consists of notes on a talk by John Bahcall, an astronomer at the Institute of Advanced Studies. The talk was given at the 1996 Joint Mathematical Meetings in Orlando, Florida, and the notes have been compiled by Gene Klotz, Project Director of the Math Forum.
Issues at Stake
The astronomy community has established research priorities by consensus.
The process facilitated some projects, and stimulated and organized
thought, but it was difficult. The work was begun in 1988 and was
completed in 14 months.
It seems to Bahcall that mathematical activities are already
prioritized, that there's a finite amount of money which is
distributed to math institutes, research areas, computers, conferences,
postdocs, travel, etc. At this time, however, activities are not
prioritized in a logical way, but by history and other forces. The
question is whether to
accept existing priorities or to try to do things more rationally.
How Astronomers Established Research Priorities
The astronomers began by building a consensus. Letters were written to
department chairs and visits were made to agencies, in part to discover what
information they would like, what form they would like it in, etc.
Visits were also made to members of congress and OMB. Selected advice was
solicited from abroad (regarding judgment and research ability), and from
representative and respected researchers. Fifteen panels comprised
of some 300 astronomers were formed. The vice-chairs of the panels all
served on a survey committee. The panel members solicited advice, articles
were published in newsletters, and there were open sessions at meetings.
Every astronomer had the opportunity to provide input.
Before the panels commenced, their members wrote essays on what their
panels should do. The panels gave presentations and solicited community
input. A core group of three persons per panel wrote up each panel's
recommendations. Bahcall wrote an article on the operation for the
National Academy of Science, which appeared in Science (Vol. 251, March 22, 1991, pp. 1412-1413).
Some technical steps that worked: an executive secretary played an
important role. Scientific potential was made the sole criterion for
prioritization. Small projects were considered before large ones. By way
of preparation, after studies were made straw ballots were taken. For
fine tuning, a strawman list was made. A policy panel and working papers
served as lightning rods.
Bahcall recommended that mathematics consider the following potential
funding sources: NSF, DOD, EPA, DOE, NSA, Wall Street, and the aircraft
industry.
Astronomers have apparently achieved considerable success, particularly in
setting their own priorities.
A question from the floor asked whether areas of theoretical research
were also prioritized. They were. A primary goal was garnering more money
for their discipline. Astronomers now have a very good name on The Hill
and are protected. Agencies think they have their house in order and they
are well regarded.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel School of Education.