Mickey Glantz had tenure, which in principle is supposed to be the same as at universities in the US. So firing him is a big deal. NCAR apparently has a loophole in its employment regulations allowing tenured scientists to be fired if their entire program is cut. There is a severance package that I understand is a function of time of service, which for Glantz is a very long time.

As far as the 3 researchers that worked for Mickey, they were given 2 weeks notice. I am not aware of any further severance. Given that, I assume that they are “at will” employees rather than under annual contracts. NCAR invented a category of “project scientist” (as compared to “staff scientist” on the tenure track) a while ago to institutionalize these short term employment arrangements.

(FWIW perpetual short-term contracts were pretty much outlawed in Europe a few years ago, although they are still permitted in unusual circumstances.)

I apologize for being late in making a comment regarding the NCAR decision to release Mickey Glantz. but I have been on travel. It is a hollow statement by NCAR at best. But first, let me echo Neville Nicholls’ comments and say something about the influence that Mickey has had on my professional life and that of my family. I met Mickey Glantz when I first came to CU in the early 90’s. At that time I was thinking of how the research I had been doing could be used in a more general context. As I had been working on monsoon problems and tropical meteorology the transition was not difficult. Mickey’s advice was quite simple. Go out and mingle with the problem. This lead to the applications work that we did, and still do, in Bangladesh in developing forecasting modules for floods. Mickey’s second message was also simple: its one thing to produce a system but you have to work with the user to make the system useful. It was good advice for me and it well could be good advice to NCAR. Fifteen trips to Bangladesh later and the Bangladeshis have a system they now control and a capacity to forecast floods 10 days in advance. My son Ben worked with both you and Mickey and both of you were instrumental in setting the directions of his career. In my address after receiving the Rossby Award I suggested to young scientists that they look broadly at the applications of their science to global social problems. Mickey’s influence was acknowledged as well.

So now Mickey has gone and NCAR is an emptier place because of it. Of all the scientists at NCAR, Mickey was the one who had (has!) the largest footprint outside of the US. But what I find intriguing is the implied statement from the new Director of NCAR saying that applications work is so important that we should have an AGU session on the subject but it is not important enough to do at NCAR as evidenced by the release of Mickey. Where does this place NCAR relative to the rest of the scientific community? NSF says that it must bolster its core mission. But what is this core mission?

The personal aspect of Mickey Glantz aside (and that shouldn’t be forgotten), I wonder if we will find out what NCAR’s core mission is? What is so surprising is that NCAR, an NSF sponsored program, would eliminate a program that is indelibly tattooed on the NSF mission. If you are interested in a Science and Technology Center, try and do it without a social science aspect!

The first sadness, of course, is the loss of Mickey Glantz at NCAR. After all of the years of dedicated work, this is a tragedy! The second sadness is the absence of a rounding program at NCAR. The third sadness is that neither UCAR, NCAR or NSF will explain itself.

Peter

The decision in this case was not one made by the Bush Administration, but by the lab.

I actually saw an email today from Fred Singer lamenting the cut. Another strength of Glantz’s work was that it enjoyed support across the entire spectrum of climate policy combatants. As I say in this post, this is a story of disciplinary politics, not left-right.

I doubt that this decision will be reconsidered, but perhaps some other funder will step up. (Angels, plz email me asap;-)

FWIW, I agree completely. If the Bush administration were really behind adaptation in the developing world, it would provide more funding for programs like this. But we all know that it has preferred defense and intelligence spending that it can channel to friends in the government leech industry.

But since there are so many in the “skeptic” side of the debate who absolutely believe that we need a much greater focus on helping poorer countries to adapt (as opposed to further wasteful research and a focus on mitigation), I predict that this story will have real legs among the concerned folk in that section of the discussion and they’ll really rally support for greater funding for Mickey Glantz’s effort from the Bush adminstration and demand actions by the Dem Congress that will help the developing world adapt to climate change. Probably Marc Morano can organize the charge from Sen. Inhofe’s desk?

Good for you for pushing this.

“Mickey Glantz and I have been friends and working colleagues for over quarter of a century. More than anyone else in the field of atmospheric and climate science, Mickey has been the iconic scientist working to ensure climate science can help society – the person who showed how climate science could be useful and used. His efforts have helped many, many scientists in many, many countries get involved in climate science and develop their skills, and show their political leaders the importance of climate. He has been a hugely successful disseminator of climate information, in a useable context, by publishing so many books I lost count years ago. For a very small investment, NCAR, through Mickey, trained scientists and users of climate science across the world, and NCAR and the USA gathered a lot of supporters across the world because of Mickey’s work. For many of my colleagues in many countries, the acronym “NCAR” means “Mickey” (and this is not to diminish the sterling work of my other NCAR friends and colleagues such as Warren Washington and Kevin Trenberth – but the reality is that Mickey has the widest and broadest and deepest respect across disciplines and countries). NCAR and climate science are poorer today, because of NCAR’s decision.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/mourning-and-debate-after-climate-labs-death/#comment-72726

Thanks for your comments. A few replies . . .

What is an “effective budget cut”? According to the NSF budget info I linked to NCAR has seen real increases in recent years, and I’ve seen data indicating a 40% overall increase since 2000. Now I know that funny things can happen between congressional appropriations and delivery to agencies and then from agencies to fundees. So if you have better budget info than that provided by NSF, please share.

Cliff Jacobs at NSF confirmed that the current cuts were made because the program was not “core” to NCAR. A funny thing to say about a 35-year old program. Social science may not be “targeted” but it clearly isn’t perceived as “core”.

As of May 2008 NCAR had 6 people on its scientific staff (i.e., scientist ladder) trained as social scientists. It now has 4. Seems like a big cut to me.

Of course I’m biased in my judgments;-), but lacking a systematic approach to setting priorities, all that will be left is each group fighting for its piece of the pie. The larger failure here is that there is appears to be no clear way for NCAR to justify the cuts to the community, and the comments by Jacobs and Trenberth just add to the perception that the decisions are not based on merit, but disciplinary tribalism. Not a good way to make decisions.

This is a pretty consistent pattern of behavior within institutions (universities or government agencies). If resources (or resource growth) aren’t what we want them to be, the move is to protect what you know, and what you’re known for. This is a very distinct question from what the public utility of a program or institution might be.

The NSF isn’t known for the broader criteria, nor for support of the social sciences, although it has made some effort in these areas. And if the national interest is contrary to theirs, they aren’t going to suggest some kind of self-sacrifice without something in it for them. Rational self-interest is alive and well.