Interested in reading more?

Employees say cronyism and inconsistent leadership have seriously damaged the unit charged with keeping tabs on U.S. research WASHINGTON--The division within the National Science Foundation that monitors the health of the United States' scientific infrastructure is in a state of turmoil, according to knowledgeable sources and internal documents obtained by The Scientist. At the heart of the unrest, these sources allege, are conflicts of interest and favoritism in the awarding of contracts, instances of discrimination and harassment, and a pervasive view that a small group has exerted undue influence over the affairs of the Division of Science Resources Studies, known as SRS. The unrest threatens to reverberate far beyond the 47 employees of the division and the $6 million in contracts that it will award this year for reports on such issues as federal spending on research, the state of academic facilities and instrumentation, and trends in scientific personnel. Those who follow the division's efforts say that the problems, if allowed to continue, could delay publication, and even undermine the accuracy, of SRS data. Federal policymakers, among others, rely upon these findings for an accurate picture of the condition of science in the U.S.--a picture whose clarity they depend on when allocating funds to the research community. There is general agreement that a revolving door at the top--the division has had four directors in the past 18 months--has aggravated the problem. Some of the directors, appointed with a mandate to straighten things out, have instead, according to sources, become victims of power struggles reaching all the way into the office of the NSF director. This month Kenneth Brown, who has spent the past four years as senior economist for the National Intelligence Council, which advises the country's director of central intelligence, settled into the hot seat (see Close-Up on page 5) when he assumed the SRS director's post. The problems within SRS, which sources say began to crop up several years ago, reached a crisis point this spring. The crisis poses the first major test of the leadership skills of NSF's new director, Walter Massey, who in March succeeded Erich Bloch. Massey assumed office following a seven-month period during which the foundation was led on an interim basis by Fred Bernthal, who came to NSF in 1989 from the State Department as deputy director and who has since resumed the No. 2 spot at the foundation. Massey declined to answer specific questions about agitation in the division. But he acknowledged that "the question of leadership [within SRS] has been one that has been up for discussion." Brown's appointment, he adds, "was part of an effort on my part to move beyond an analysis of the past and toward finding new leadership for the future." Despite a reluctance by top NSF officials to discuss the issue, The Scientist has been able, by relying on numerous interviews and internal documents, to piece together a picture of the current controversy's major elements. Among them: * NSF's Inspector General, according to several sources, has begun an investigation into the propriety of more than a dozen contracts awarded by the division for work dating from 1974 to the present. The investigation reportedly was launched on May 30, nearly a year after the IG's office was first informed of a possible conflict of interest on the part of an NSF program manager whose spouse works at one of the division's largest contractors and who oversees contracts with that firm. As part of its investigation, according to these sources, the IG's office is looking at contracts awarded to that company. "These are not rabble-rousers. They're hard-working people who like to work, but they haven't been given the chance." That's how one analyst inside the Science Resources Studies (SRS) division at the National Science Foundation characterizes the group of 14 staffers who met May 30 with NSF director Walter Massey to air their grievances about practices within the division. Those who attended this extraordinary gathering say they wanted to let their new leader know about, among other things, a half-dozen coworkers, who, they believe, had been allowed to run amok within the division, routinely forcing the rest of the employees to either bend to their will or run the risk of being ostracized--or worse. The group had demanded the meeting with Massey because, in the words of another participant, "if we don't do something about this clique, it's going to continue [to run things] for another 20 years, until all of them retire." Having been granted a hearing, the staffers recall bristling with purpose as they strode the six blocks to Massey's office. "You should have seen us marching up the hill to NSF headquarters," recalls one participant. "It was one of the most impressive-looking groups of people you'd ever want to meet." Adds another staffer, "We represented a crosscut of all levels, from [federal civil service] grade 3 to grade 15, and from three weeks to 30 years of service at the foundation." The meeting was scheduled to last 15 minutes. Instead, it ran for an hour and a half as each staffer gave his or her own perspective on the controversy. "He couldn't believe what we were telling him," says one participant, "although he said that he had known some of it already." Massey also assured them of his support. " `Don't worry,' he said," recalls one participant. "He said there are laws to protect us from this sort of behavior. `It isn't like when I was growing up in Mississippi,' he said." Although Massey has not discussed the meeting publicly, the participants are convinced that it marks a turning point in the affairs of SRS. "Now he knows that we know the truth," says one. "And we're hoping that he'll do the right thing." * Also on May 30, 14 SRS employees met personally with Massey to air their grievances. The employees spent 90 minutes with the director (see accompanying story), presenting a bill of SRS particulars that detailed poor management practices, favoritism in hiring and promotions, discrimination and harassment, and the importance of improving what they viewed as an unhealthy and unprofessional work environment. * The next day, Massey rescinded a decision announced two weeks earlier by Karl Willenbrock, head of NSF's Scientific, Technological, and International Affairs (STIA) directorate, to appoint Gerard Glaser acting director of SRS. Glaser, who joined SRS as a program analyst in 1976, is executive officer for STIA, the directorate within which SRS is located. He is also seen by many SRS staffers as a prominent figure in the small group of employees whose conduct is now being questioned. The SRS post had been filled on an acting basis since January by William Ellis, a political scientist who came to NSF last year on a temporary assignment. On May 31, Ellis returned to his permanent position with the Congressional Research Service. In his place, Massey appointed James Hays, then senior science adviser to the NSF director, to serve on an interim basis. * A charge of sexual and racial discrimination was filed last year with the foundation's Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) against one SRS manager for allegedly using abusive language toward a professional employee. According to internal documents on the matter, OEO upheld the charge. Its response was to prohibit the manager from holding a supervisory position for two years and to require him to participate in human relations training. * Last month OEO was asked by another NSF employee to investigate the same supervisor following an alleged second incident, which, according to the employee, suggested a continuing pattern of discrimination and harassment. The employee has claimed that the former supervisor sharply questioned a colleague about the nature of a lunchtime discussion between her and the colleague. The employee had presented evidence in support of the person found to have been the victim of sexual and racial discrimination. The employee also alleges that the supervisor told her coworker that associating with her "was bad for [his] career." Repeated efforts to contact the supervisor by telephone were unsuccessful; messages, at press time, remained unreturned. Earlier this month, the supervisor was moved out of SRS and reassigned to another division within STIA. * SRS staffers have expressed concern about the lack of competition for some of the work awarded to SRS contractors. For example, one recent request for proposals, involving the third installment of an ongoing survey of academic research facilities, resulted in only one bid--and that from the contractor that had done the first two surveys. A survey of this type might normally attract a half-dozen or more bidders, say officials at companies that do similar work. How could all of this come about? And why should the average scientist care about what goes on in a program that consumes less than one-half of 1 percent of the foundation's $2.3 billion budget? The answer to the first question, say those familiar with the situation, is rooted in the nature of SRS's function, its physical location, and how it has been managed. SRS serves a different audience from that of the rest of the foundation, and in a different manner. The division does most of its work through contracts to commercial companies, which bid on surveys that SRS oversees at the request of Congress or the executive branch, or on its own initiative. That approach makes it different from the rest of the foundation, which in general awards grants, not contracts, to academic researchers for ideas they have conceived and wish to implement. In addition to these procedural differences, SRS also is physically removed from the rest of the foundation. Its employees occupy a suite of offices a half-dozen blocks northwest of NSF headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C., and, thus, have less interaction with the rest of the foundation than they would if they were housed in the same building. Consequently, insiders say, the division is removed from direct oversight of top NSF officials if and when problems occur. Lastly, some knowledgeable observers contend, until the past year, the division has had a succession of lax managers who delegated an excessive amount of their authority. As for the second question, it is generally agreed that a healthy scientific enterprise is essential to the nation's economic well-being--and NSF, through its mandate from Congress, is supposed to keep its finger on the pulse of U.S. science. The people responsible for doing so, through surveys and other analytical instruments, are the men and women within SRS. Most of the SRS staff closest to the events of the past several months refused to speak publicly about the controversy. Some declined to be interviewed at all. Others agreed to speak only after being promised anonymity, fearing, they said, the loss of their jobs and even retaliation against themselves or their families. Kenneth Brown has impressive credentials for his new job as director of the Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS) at the National Science Foundation. Holder of a Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, with a specialty in statistical methods and the economics of technology, the 51-year-old Brown also spent six years as deputy director of the Bureau of Industrial Economics for the Commerce Department. But what most people want to talk about when you mention Brown is whether, for the past four years, he's been a spy. Well, maybe not a real spy. As senior economist for the National Intelligence Council, a body that advises the director of central intelligence, Brown has worked inside the Central Intelligence Agency. But he says it's useless to tell people that not everybody at the CIA is a spy. "Actually, I've stuck to economic analysis," says Brown. "It's an important part of developing estimates for a national security profile." Compared to figuring out the impact of what Saddam Hussein might do next, dealing with the turmoil inside SRS has to seem like pretty tame stuff. But Brown says his new job poses a wealth of interesting challenges. "I'm a longtime user of SRS data, and I have a deep professional interest in the economics of the R&D enterprise," he says. "It's an important field, and SRS produces a lot of material that's quite useful to the entire scientific community." Brown says he's aware of some of the problems facing SRS, including high turnover in the director's slot. But he says that none of them--neither the investigation now reportedly being conducted by the inspector general nor the low morale, to name two such issues--was enough to deter him. "I'm really looking forward to working with the staff and becoming more familiar with what they do," he says. "It's a great opportunity, and I intend to be here for a while." --J.M. Ann Lanier, an analyst who's been at SRS for four years, says she, for one, harbors such a fear. But, she says, she's willing to risk her career in order to reveal what's been going on at SRS. "There's been a tremendous amount of oppression and suppression in that division," says Lanier, who raised a family and then re-entered the work force after earning a Ph.D. in sociology. "I don't see it as a grand conspiracy. It's more like what [Columbia University sociologist] Harriet Zuckerman would call an accumulation of advantage. "It's a tight buddy system that has lost all concept of right and wrong," Lanier continues. "Like the boys in [William Golding's novel] Lord of the Flies, if you're not one of them, you're fair game." Lanier has been involved in both of the alleged incidents of discrimination mentioned earlier. In the first, said to have occurred in June 1990, Lanier was working with a colleague when her supervisor allegedly burst into the room and uttered a sexual obscenity at the colleague. Lanier says it wasn't the first time she had heard her supervisor use such language, but this time, the victim "didn't laugh or slink away, like he expected her to do." When the discrimination complaint was lodged with OEO, Lanier provided supportive testimony as an eyewitness to the alleged event. Her colleague, who asked that her name not be used, says she hopes to transfer out of the division and, possibly, to another government agency. Since her testimony, says Lanier, she's been the target of a steady stream of low-level harassment. "It's the most petty, childish stuff," she says, "like somebody coming into my office and turning off my computer, or rifling through my desk at night. I'm almost embarrassed to complain about it, but I've gotten to the point where I just won't tolerate that kind of behavior anymore." Two months ago, she said in a request she filed to reopen the supervisor's record, the harassment intensified. She had just returned from lunch with a colleague, she said, when the same supervisor buttonholed the colleague and began questioning him about what was discussed at the meal. "It was the day that [former acting SRS director] Bill Ellis had said he was leaving, and a memo had gone out announcing the appointment of [Gerard] Glaser as acting director," says Lanier. "I guess that action made them feel they could do anything. But when [her colleague] stood up and announced that he wasn't going to take it, it must have been quite a shock to them." The "them" to which she refers is a group of a half-dozen or so employees, either within SRS or with close ties to it, that are perceived by many SRS staffers as having undue influence over the division's affairs. In a May 20 memo to Massey, SRS staffers made their case for reform: "The greatest problem with SRS is the interference of Mr. Glaser in SRS affairs, and his sanctioning of the unprofessional and unethical activities of his clique in SRS . . ." the memo declared. "We do not want to work for Mr. Glaser, not even for a short period of time. He helps to perpetuate a system which is oppressive, and an environment filled with fear and paranoia. . . . If SRS is to survive, this clique cannot continue this harassment with impunity." Shortly thereafter, Massey reversed a decision to name Glaser as acting SRS director. Instead, STIA's Willenbrock assigned Glaser to manage one of NSF's most important ongoing projects, the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators report, which contains a wealth of statistical information on the U.S. scientific enterprise. Glaser refused to discuss either the accusations against him or his new duties. In a telephone interview, he repeatedly referred all questions about SRS to Willenbrock. Willenbrock also declined to discuss details of the controversy. "I would rather not dwell on the past," he said, adding that he expects the new SRS director to resolve any remaining administrative problems. Massey's appointment of Hays as acting SRS director is seen by the division's staff as a positive response to their concerns. A former chairman of the department of geological sciences at Harvard University, Hays came to NSF in 1982 to head its Division of Earth Sciences. He served 18 months as Erich Bloch's senior science adviser, and last fall Fred Bernthal tapped him for a second stint as science adviser. Widely praised as a skillful, no-nonsense manager, Hays gets high marks from many SRS staffers. "If every scientist was as good an administrator as Jim Hays," says one, "this place would be heaven." Were this controversy to be presented as a Greek drama, says one SRS staffer, the role of Hercules cleaning out the Augean stables would be played by Bill Ellis. Initially brought on board as an assistant to Willenbrock, Ellis succeeded Daniel Melnick as acting SRS director in January. Melnick, a political scientist with a long career at the Congressional Research Service, was named acting SRS director in January 1990 after the retirement of William Stewart, a veteran NSF administrator who headed the division for three years. Internal NSF memos show that Melnick, who also declined to discuss his tenure at SRS, had begun to question some of the contracting practices within his division. NSF insiders say that those doubts brought him into conflict with the so-called clique. As a result, sources say, shortly before his SRS appointment would have become permanent, Melnick found himself with a new job, as a special assistant to the head of another NSF directorate, Education and Human Resources. Ellis, according to internal documents and interviews with SRS staffers, immediately began to ask even tougher questions about what was happening within the division. He was, according to these documents and interviews, particularly troubled by the fact that one SRS analyst, Jim Hoehn, was married to a woman who worked for a company that receives approximately $1 million annually from SRS contracts. That company is Westat Inc. of Rockville, Md., a firm that carries out contract research for a variety of federal and private clients. Last summer, shortly before his marriage, Hoehn wrote a memo "removing myself from all project management decisions involving Westat" and delegating all responsibilities to either a subordinate or to his superiors. But in February, Ellis raised the matter with NSF's ethics officer, Lewis Grotke, seeking clarification of Hoehn's duties and whether they posed any potential conflict of interest. A week later Grotke wrote back that Hoehn was still involved in affairs relating to the company, supervising employees who currently managed Westat contracts, and participating in decisions affecting future contracts that the company could be expected to seek. NSF had three options, Grotke concluded in a March 6 memo: grant Hoehn a waiver, based on an opinion from its general counsel that his involvement was too small to worry about; change his duties to separate him entirely from business relating to Westat; or find him a different job, either within or outside NSF. There was one problem with the second option, Grotke noted: "The SRS division currently operates through contracts, and there is no study group where Westat is not either a current contractor or a probable bidder." Ellis concluded that Hoehn should be reassigned. That memo triggered a battle between Ellis and the so-called clique. According to internal NSF documents, Ellis wanted to make sure the agency was not violating any federal ethics laws, and he sought Grotke's advice on the subject. But Ellis's actions provoked a strong reaction from members of the so-called clique, documents reveal. One of the documents is a memo from deputy director Bernthal, treating an issue that normally would be handled at a much lower level but wound up involving the NSF director's office. The memo, beginning with "What gives?", orders Willenbrock to retract a memo from Ellis to SRS staff that attempted to summarize Grotke's opinion. Another memo, from the contract officer who until recently handled SRS's portfolio, reads as follows: "Jim, we took care of this last year prior to your marriage. DGC [Division of Grants and Contracts] and STIA all blessed your recusal [statement of disengagement] from any aspect of a conflict in regard to Westat. Who the hell brought this up?" In the end, Ellis lost his battle over conflict of interest. On April 15, Grotke, in a decision cosigned by NSF general counsel Charles Herz, ruled that Hoehn should issue a new recusal memo, spelling out how he would avoid all potential or real conflicts of interest. In addition, say Grotke and Herz, the company should promise NSF that Hoehn's spouse would not participate in any matters relating to SRS contracts. Last week, however, Hoehn was reassigned to a position within the education and human resources directorate that does not involve dealing with contracts for survey research. Hoehn's new job eliminates any potential conflicts of interest, says SRS division director Brown. Efforts to contact Hoehn were unsuccessful. Ellis wasn't through, according to documents. Soon he began to wonder why the announcement of an $800,000 contract for the third in a series of congressionally mandated surveys on academic research facilities had attracted only one bidder--Westat, the company that had done the first two surveys. In a memo to the Division of Grants and Contracts, Ellis explained that "there are a number of qualified firms and non-profit research institutes fully capable of doing an excellent job on this project. . . . The most compelling explanation [for the existence of only one bidder] is that the other firms, reviewing this history and understanding that Westat has about one-half of the SRS contracts that are competed, would believe that they had no chance of winning a contract with SRS." He suggested that NSF hold a new competition. The contracting officer replied that there was no reason to reopen the bidding. "I find no evidence of anything that would have prevented offerors from responding," the officer wrote back. Subsequently, Ellis is believed to have decided that he could not function effectively at SRS and bowed out of the race to be named the division's permanent director. Last month he returned to CRS, handing over his duties to Hays. The inspector general's office "will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any type of review relating to SRS," says its general counsel, Philip Sunshine. But a source within the IG's office, which received Hoehn's 1990 memo, confirms that an investigation of a variety of SRS contracts is under way, and that it could take several months. Hays, who held the job for five weeks before giving way this month to Brown, acknowledges that SRS faces problems. But his charge from Massey, he explains, was to restore morale as well as mete out justice. "Because of the various discontinuities over the past few years," Hays says, "much of the work is behind schedule. I have tried to get people to focus on their jobs, and that's happening. But they've been through a lot."

Turnover, Dissension, And Isolation Plague NSF Office That Monitors Health Of Science

Jul 21, 1991

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of