RESEARCHERS at NASA and the US national laboratories, such as Los Alamos and
Fermilab, are wondering what will happen to them under the new administration.
So far, George W. Bush has said nothing.
That suggests he doesn鈥檛 much care about physics, chemistry and astronomy,
says physicist Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American
Physical Society. 鈥淒uring the campaign, Bush talked only about medical research
and nothing else,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 think that tells you where the priorities
补谤别.鈥�
But one Senate aide paints a different picture. The new administration
recognises that science and technology drove the economic boom of the 1990s, he
says. 鈥淭he message has seeped in that this is a key determinant of economic
辫谤辞蝉辫别谤颈迟测.鈥�
Advertisement
Perhaps most uncertain is the future of the Department of Energy鈥檚 16
national labs, which includes big science facilities as well as weapons labs.
The DOE has been plagued in recent years by security lapses and environmental
problems. Even fans of DOE research think the department needs an overhaul.
Incoming Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham once co-sponsored a bill to
abolish the DOE. But William Happer, a former DOE science director, says that
Abraham has been a public supporter of the DOE鈥檚 Office of Science. 鈥淪o that is
hopeful,鈥� he says.
The question at NASA is who will replace the chief administrator Daniel
Goldin, who revitalised NASA science by pushing for fast, cheap and lean
missions, says Marcia Rieke of the American Astronomical Society.
鈥淚 think things [at NASA] are in reasonable order,鈥� says engineer John
McElroy, chair of the National Research Council鈥檚 Space Studies Board. NASA鈥檚
ageing shuttle fleet is McElroy鈥檚 main worry: 鈥淚 think the thing that everyone
is concerned about is the launch rate that has to be maintained to complete the
[International Space Station].鈥�
