Interested in reading more?

Proponents believe that legislation establishing new science funding unit may be introduced in the U.S. Senate this summer Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia) Air and Waste Management Association American Academy of Veterinary and Comparative Toxicology American Agricultural Economics Association American Anthropological Association American Association for the Advancement of Science (Biological Science Section) American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums American Fisheries Society American Geographical Society American Institute of Biological Sciences American Malacological Society American Ornithologists' Union American Phytopathological Society American Society of Agricultural Engineers American Society of Agronomy American Society for Horticultural Science American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists American Society of Mammalogists American Society of Naturalists American Society for Neurochemistry American Society of Parasitologists American Society of Pharmacognosy American Society of Plant Taxonomists American Society of Zoologists American Sociological Association (Environment & Technology Section) American Solar Energy Society Animal Behavior Society Association of American Geographers Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences Association of Environmental Engineering Professors Association of Field Ornithologists Association of Southeastern Biologists Botanical Society of America California Academy of Sciences The Carnegie Institution of Washington Center for Conservation Biology (Stanford University) Crop Science Society Council of Scientific Society Presidents Council of Systematic Malacologists Desert Fishes Council Ecological Society of America Estuarine Research Federation Foundation for Microbiology Herpetologists' League Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences (Rutgers University) International Association for Hydrogen Energy International Association for Impact Assessment International Oceanographic Foundation Mississippi State University Research Center Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Mycological Society of America National Association of Environmental Professionals National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs New Jersey Marine Science Consortium New York Botanical Garden New York Zoological Society Organization for Flora Neotropica Rural Sociological Society Society for Conservation Biology Society for Economic Botany Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Society for Industrial Microbiology Society for Ecological Restoration Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Society for the Study of Evolution Soil Science Society Soil and Water Conservation Society Special Libraries Association University of Maryland SeaGrant Program U.S. Federation of Culture Collections For information, contact: Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, 730 11th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-4521; (202) 628-4303. Fax: (202) 628-4311. E-mail: cnie@access.digex.net Buoyed by a groundswell of grass-roots and official support, advocates for the creation of a new governmental agency--the National Institute for the Environment (NIE)--are optimistic that legislation establishing the proposed entity could be passed within a year. The agency, first suggested in 1989 and organizationally modeled on the National Institutes of Health, would, according to its proponents, function largely as a funding and information clearinghouse to support environmental research. Its primary mission, NIE supporters say, would be to fund studies bridging the gap between investigations financed by the National Science Foundation and those essential to the management and regulation activities of governmental bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "It's really starting to take off," says Peter D. Saundry, a physicist and executive director of the Committee for NIE (CNIE)--a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit coalition of more than 7,000 scientists, educators, students, business leaders, environmentalists, and other con- cerned citizens pushing for NIE's establishment. "There's an awful lot of excitement about what an NIE can do. We're really starting to build up momentum." Legislation involving the proposed new agency, introduced in the House of Representatives last August and still in committee discussions, is expected to be raised for debate on the House floor in the near future. The Clinton administration, moreover, is likely to reveal its position on NIE this summer, according to Saundry. "We are also having discussions with a number of key senators," he says, in hopes that one of them will introduce a companion Senate bill this summer. Scope Of Responsibility Those who have promoted the NIE concept, which was first articulated in 1989, contend that the best way such an institute can function is as an independent agency with four areas of responsibility: research, assessment of current knowledge, education, and information sharing. Its proposed purpose, they say, is not to replace existing environmental agencies, but to complement their missions by concentrating on problems (such as ozone depletion and deforestation) that are too comprehensive or time-consuming to be sufficiently studied by these agencies. Because its focus is to be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, the proposed agency's leaders would include representatives of academia, government, and industry. To date, 70 bipartisan cosponsors, led by Reps. George Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.) and James Saxton (R-N.J.) have endorsed the bill to found NIE. In addition to this political support, 24 environmental advocacy groups, 29 universities, more than 70 scientific professional organizations (see list on page 6), and prominent minority group and business leaders have voiced their support of the NIE idea. NIE advocates argue that the proposed institute could have a significantly positive impact on the way in which United States environmental science is conducted in terms of its funding, education, research collaboration, and information sharing. After a meeting with Saxton last October, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt said in a statement, "I can support the concept. It's much needed. We've evolved over the last 25 years an extraordinary set of environmental laws, but our attention to underlying science and technology has not kept pace." The NIE concept started with Stephen P. Hubbell, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University and chairman of CNIE, and Henry F. Howe, an ecologist at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Hubbell and Howe, along with 50 other supporters, first convened in 1989 (E. Pennisi, The Scientist, Nov. 12, 1990, page 1) to discuss the idea. "We have grown about three orders of magnitude since then in terms of supporters," says Hubbell. Today, CNIE is run by a staff of about 20 and funded by private foundations such as the Pew Charitable Trust in Philadelphia. Unlike existing agencies, Saundry explains, NIE would involve representatives from academia; nongovernmental organiza- tions; and local, state, and federal agencies in its mission. "This is more than simply an academic initiative driven by research scientists, although they are an absolutely key constituency," he says. "It's not just the generators of science, but the users of science who are going to be an integral part of this." Adding prestige to CNIE's stature is its early March appointment of Hon. Richard Benedick as the first president of CNIE. Benedick, a career diplomat and special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general at the 1992 "Earth Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro, sees his role as helping to guide the strategic planning of NIE and providing a "high visibility that is called for at this phase when the project is really gaining momentum." "From my own experience as an international negotiator," says Benedick, referring to his work as chief mediator for the 1987 Montreal Project, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer, "I felt that the NIE was very definitely an idea whose time had come." Environmental scientists and CNIE officials agree that two of the most pressing arguments for NIE are inadequate funding for and coordination of environmental research in the United States. According to Larry Gilbert, chairman of the department of zoology at the University of Texas, Austin, "Most public funds for research applied to issues of the environment flow through agencies such as EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, where the scientific questions or goals designated for funding programs are developed more often by bureaucrats than scientific investigators. Funds go to laboratories willing to work on a particular defined project rather than to the best scientific proposals. "Unfortunately for scientists who study environmental biology, there is no counterpart to NIH to complement the limited support available through NSF," Gilbert says. Regarding research coordination, Thomas Eisner, a chemical ecologist at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., says, "An NIE would give a focus to environmental research problems." According to CNIE, there are currently 20 federal agencies and departments with a role in environmental research. Hubbell says that the basic message CNIE is taking to politicians is that NIE needs to be an agency that focuses on interdisciplinary, problem-oriented en- vironmental research with its own protected budget. He says that, conceptually, it is generally agreed that there is a need for the functions that NIE would perform. He explains, however, there is opposition from some people who have expressed concerns about what it will cost and whether the "reinventing of government cannot already do what we are proposing." Hubbell says that detractors argue that "in a time of fiscal austerity, government can't afford a new agency." For example, according to the CNIE spring 1994 newsletter, some university administrators are wary of whether NIE functions would mesh with those of the Department of the Interior's National Biological Survey (NBS), although Babbitt endorsed the concept. These administrators have also voiced apprehensions that a new, large agency would compete for the already comparatively small amount of federal dollars for environmental research. Saundry explains how CNIE proposes NIE should be funded: "The federal government currently spends about $76 billion on research and development. That's split about 55 percent for defense, 45 percent for civilian. This administration has committed itself to rebalancing that." He says that CNIE feels that a "good chunk" of the 5 percent shift to even up the split should be allocated to environmental research and creating NIE. The total 1992 budget for environmental research, according to CNIE documents, was $3.1 billion. To control costs, NIE supporters suggest that the proposed agency not have its own facilities, but fund extramural research through competitive grants to academic institutions, federal laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and private companies. Benedick also observes: "The administration is still wary because some people see [NIE] as a threat, although Babbitt has been a supporter." He says that the existing agencies feel somewhat unjustifiably threatened during a time of budget constraints. Unjustifiable, Benedick says, because "the NIE along with the private sector and the academic community would raise the profile for environmental research and would mean more money for all environmental research programs." Regarding NIE's proposed status as a quasi-independent agency, Benedick says, "another principal advantage [to forming NIE] is that because NIE will be independent and linked to environmental stakeholders, it would not only have credibility but a durability that can never be achieved inside the federal system. So, setting up an NIE will hopefully insulate [environmental research] from the inevitable vagaries from administration to administration." According to Gilbert, "Another problem of the current funding programs is that they discourage, rather than encourage, interdisciplinary approaches to problems. Economic, social, and legal issues must be part of an overall solution." Under an NIE setup, Gilbert foresees interactive teams of environmental biologists and socio- economic experts working together. He expects that individuals will still work "on their own thing," but that there might be more funding for the person who can put his or her research interests into a "larger package that means something," in terms of solving major environmental problems. NIE's proposed educational function would help sustain a future for the growing number of students interested in environmental studies, its supporters maintain. Carole Crumley, a professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, sees an urgent need for funding and coordination of undergraduate and graduate programs in environmental sciences. She says there are many examples of North American universities developing interdisciplinary curricula in environmental studies, but that there's also "a huge demand out there washing at the doors." Crumley says that, employment-wise, her students are interested in managing collaborative efforts--"being the people that make the interdisciplinary connections among the many disciplines of environmental research." She also mentions that she is in the midst of "kicking off" a national university campaign to get support among undergraduate and graduate students for the efforts of CNIE. Regarding NIE's proposed information-sharing function, Saundry explains that NIE would link databases like the ones proposed by NBS with other environmental databases such as those used by NASA, EPA, and NIH. "We're not going to establish new information sources, but what we'll do is provide a telecommunications network linking all of these databases to a single channel of access and provide support for people to navigate through the system," he says. Cornell's Eisner predicts that NIE has the potential to be a "giant intellectual clearinghouse where ideas could be compared and given relative priority." Although CNIE has already gained much ground toward making NIE a reality, Saundry says, "We are very open to input from bench scientists. The NIE is well developed, but we are still evolving. This is the beginning of a partnership. We're not saying, `Here's a product--buy this.'"

Supporters Of National Environment Institute Say Proposed Agency Could Become Reality Within Year

May 15, 1994

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of