2427, that sought elimination of all fiscal 1992 funding for the Superconducting Super Collider. However, the most heated debate was generated by a move to delete all funding for space station Freedom from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's 1992 budget, saving $1.92 billion. This decision was made by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD & Independent Agencies, and later endorsed by the full committee. That decision brought an immediate response. It was denounced by the Administration, which called the space station a "critical element" in planned future space science and technology programs, a "major contributor" to long-term U.S. economic growth, and an "important element" in international science and technology cooperation. Members of the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, chaired by Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D.-Calif.), participated in a lengthy colloquy on the House floor explaining the merits of the space station program. And the station's supporters in the House, led by Rep. Jim Chapman (D.-Tex.), came up with a way to fund it. They offered an amendment to the NASA appropriations bill, H.R. 2519, that called for freezing spending for all of NASA's programs at current levels, including the current $1.9 billion that is being spent on the space station. Rep. Bob Traxler (D.-Mich.), chairman of the VA subcommittee, said restoring funding for the space station "is going to eat our lunch this year, but it is going to eat your dinner next year." He pointed out that 1993 space station costs will be about $2.3 billion, with an increase to $2.5 billion the following year. Traxler then asked his colleagues, "How can we expect to provide for 10 to 15% increases in NASA, 8 to 9% increases in VA medical care, an 18% increase in the National Science Foundation, and 8 to 10% increases in environmental programs, when [the subcommittee's budget] allocation will go up within the range of 3 to 4^% ?" (Housing, veterans, environmental, space, and NSF programs are all contained in the same subcommittee "basket" with a funding cap applied to the allocation.)
The answer according to Traxler is, "It 'don't' work. That dog 'don't' hunt. That turkey 'don't' fly. I cannot manufacture money and neither can the subcommittee." Brown argued that canceling the space station "is not a narrow or confined decision that will allow the remainder of America's space development to continue on, unnoticing of the loss of just one initiative. This is the center and stepping-off point of space development for the 21st century." And he pointed out that the space station program is a joint international effort to which the U.S.'s Canadian, European, and Japanese allies have pledged billions of dollars. Withdrawing from the project now, Brown said, "does not reflect responsible action, but rather irresponsible action." He predicted that if the station were to be canceled, the U.S. will be excluded, as an uninvited partner, in future international science and t e c h n o l o g y projects "because our allies and friends no longer trust our word." In the end, the House voted to continue funding for the station by a margin of 240 to 173. Janice Long
Awards boost physics chemistry departments A new "Department Development Program" aimed at strengthening selected undergraduate chemistry and p h y s i c s departments was launched last week by Research Corp., a scientific foundation based in Tucson, Ariz. The program's initial $510,000 award will help fund an intensive four-year development effort at the chemistry department of the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. The funding will be matched by the university and supplemented by outside sources. The program will make one or two similarly large commitments each year to other predominantly undergraduate physics and chemistry departments. The development plan at Eau Claire includes increasing the numbers and diversity of chemistry faculty, expanding support for re-
search, improving undergraduate education, and attracting more students to study chemistry. In addition, lab space will be enlarged and new instrumentation and computers purchased. Robert L. Lichter, executive director of the Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation, calls the new program an important step. "The idea," he says, "is to identify departments that show some strength, that provide evidence they understand what needs to be done to make a department of significance, and for which an infusion of external money, leveraged with institutional money, can help position them in the front rank of undergraduate departments." Under the program, Research Corp. will invite selected chemistry and physics departments to formulate a four- or five-year development plan for expanding excellence in research and teaching, and detailing the improvements in faculty, equipment, facilities, research support, and student recruitment needed to meet these goals. Selection of grantees will be based on faculty accomplishments, student productivity, and studies by Research Corp. staff and consultants. The program is unique in two ways among schemes for developing departments. It provides for outside consultants to evaluate and advise the department, not only during proposal preparation, but throughout the grant's term. And it seeks broad evaluation of department needs. "It encourages an integrated view of the department in a way that I don't believe anyone else is doing today," says Joseph E. Rogers, administrator of research grants at the American Chemical Society. Research Corp. was founded in 1912 by Frederick Gardner Cottrell, inventor of the electrostatic precipitator. Endowed solely with the precipitator patent rights, the foundation developed it and other academic inventions to earn money to give away—over $100 million in all since 1912. It currently makes over $3 million in awards annually, primarily for research in chemistry, physics, and astronomy at undergraduate institutions. Stu Borman June 17, 1991 C&EN
7
