““I don’t think this has anything to do with shutting down social science at NCAR,” says Linda Mearns, who recently stepped down as director of the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment there. Mearns says social scientists within the institute will continue to work with physical scientists at NCAR on integrated research projects. “And that’s the proper role for an institute in social science at NCAR.””

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080812/full/454808a.html

In other words, she fits, but Mickey did not. Ouch.

I think the budget story is beyond these two sets of budget data though. From the staff communications of Rick and Tim (former director), FY2008 was a very difficult budget year, because there was a continuing resolution, where expected budgets did not end up arriving, and hoped-for growth did not materialize, as has already been mentioned. It is also my suspicion that costs at NCAR rise faster than the average economy-wide inflation, as is true for college costs (for reasons I do not know). I therefore think the budget story is not just hyperbole but was a real fiscal situation.

Nonetheless, we all know that merely having less money than anticipated does not automatically dictate which programs get cut. In my opinion there has been absolutely no justification provided that can explain why such an already small part of NCAR with such a large responsibility (ensuring that science can be useful to the public and decision makers) has been reduced so drastically. When the SERE laboratory was eliminated in early May of this year (the former parent administrative unit of CCB), the NCAR staff were assured by the former director of NCAR that “We want to emphasize that these changes in no way diminish UCAR’s and NCAR’s commitment to ASP, ISSE, and CCB. Despite the current budget challenges, we remain dedicated to our vision of developing leadership in the social science components of climate and weather research, creating societal and policy-relevant research and information products, and conducting research on human-environment interactions.”

Somehow this dedication has now vanished a mere 3 months later.

I also find it inexcusable that a very senior, very distinguished, tenured scientist has been simply “let go”. Mickey Glantz is synonymous with the term “usable science” and is world-renowned for his work to help especially those in developing countries respond to and anticipate climate-related disasters. After 34 years of service and building such an esteemed reputation for NCAR, this type of treatment is unjustified and does not reflect well on NCAR.

Beyond the personal aspect of the loss of Mickey for NCAR, I do wonder how NCAR plans to position itself as far as creating usable science. In this day and age, we need more commitment to creating usable science, not less. The Climate Change Science Program has re-emphasized its commitment to decision support, among many other programs. NSF is increasingly interdisciplinary and including broader impacts in its funding priorities. NCAR does not appear to be in sync with these broader trends. I can only hope it examines its budget and commitments and seeks to reverse this troubling trend.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/GDPDEF.txt

Change the year in the URL for previous years.

The NSF budget information doesn’t drill down terribly far. For instance, if they have anything more than the line item for all of NCAR in the budget numbers, I couldn’t find it on their website.

The FY09 request, however, with a 9.5% increase, throws some wrinkles into the argument. Sure, it’s only a request, but it’s the rare agency that cuts in the face of proposed budget increases.

Thanks for these comments.

If UCAR has problems with healthcare costs or fuel then it should say so publicly. Your comment is the first I have heard about that. The most recent press release and staff emails emphasized budgets from DC as the driving force behind the need for cuts, not increased programmatic expenses (Though Anthes did mention the cost of HIAPER in his statement).

At CU our heathcare costs have gone down in the past 2 years after increasing for a few. My overhead on grants has not changed.

I would welcome your insight on why 110 positions have been lost in a time of constant (after inflation) budgets. Surely that is not all going to fuel and maintenance?