sible to work like this, but it is real, real slow." The answer, one scientist said, is for Congress to either modify federal statutes to provide enough flexibility to allow federal scientists to interact with contractors or to lift the cap on federal FTEs. This staffer and several others applauded the FTE conversions, but said they were not fairly distributed throughout ORD. Most, they said, went to biology and toxicology research in the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Others have disagreements with the new structure itself, particularly the separation between exposure and effects, arguing that examining exposure means little without considering its effects. And several said having labs report to other labs in different parts of the country greatly complicates research, adding that an EPA organization chart now looks like an "airline map." Others said the shift is consistent with the move toward decentralization, something scientists at the lab level have long demanded. Most, however, said these differences could be worked out a n d physical location has less i m p a c t in this day of electronic mail and fax machines. Despite their complaints about the effect of the reorganization, most EPA scientists appear resigned to the need for it. And as one put it, "Maybe the big problem is that it is new, and we simply haven't made it work yet. I believe if we are left alone, we can. Sometimes I think we are starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and this time we're pretty sure it's not a train coming the other way." Facing an uncertain future, ORD staff say their nightmare would be a replay of the past decade's events in which outside committees analyzing the reorganization recommend structural changes, but the recommendations go unheeded. And a few years down the line, about the time ORD staff have tailored the new structure to their needs, Congress jumps in and demands another round of ORD reforms, setting off a new wave of turmoil in the longrunning saga of improving science at EPA labs.
ORD reorganization debate goes public In a commentary published this year in Nature, David Lewis, a scientist in the Ecosystem Research Division with long EPA experience, openly criticized EPA science and management, as well as the effect of the reorganization [Nature, 1996, 381, 731-32). The article generated much interest inside the agency, as well as spinoff articles in the popular press. Lewis charged that EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has one-third fewer scientists today than when he joined EPA 25 years ago, and their time is largely consumed by administrative red tape, not scientific research. Lewis predicted that the reorganization will continue this trend and the creation of the "megalabs" will further push EPA along the "big bureaucracy path forged by Washington headquarters and the regional offices." Although he said he supports the growing use of peer review within EPA and the increase in extramural research grants, he noted that the grants have come at the expense of cooperative agreements. The cooperative agreements, he said, had the advantage of allowing EPA scientists to work directly with their counterparts outside EPA. The demise, he added, will further isolate ORD scientists. Among general criticisms, Lewis warned that ORD research in the biological sciences is poorly funded and decreasing in importance, which will weaken environmental protection and regulations. As a partial solution to these problems, Lewis called for creation of a cabinet-level Department of Environment that includes environmental research arms of other federal government agencies and urged that the new department be run by a leading environmental scientist. In response to Lewis' article, Bernard Goldstein, director of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute and a former ORD head, praised reforms by ORD Assistant Administrator Robert Huggett {Nature, 1996, 382, 391). In particular, Goldstein endorsed steps toward greater dependence on peer review, quality assurance, and development of the new extramural grant program at ORD, as well as Huggett's new strategic planning process. He predicted that changes now under way will increase the ratio of scientists to administrators and trim the bureaucracy. Goldstein charged that Lewis's commentary was "misleading as to the direction of changes in recent years." —JEFF JOHNSON
mittee on Research Opportunities and Priorities for EPA, National Research Council, March 1996. ORD evaluations include Future Risk: Research Strategies Investigations into EPA's contracting policies of ORD, for the 1990s, U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 1988; Re- Superfund, and other programs include "The Environmenducing Risks: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environ- tal Protection Agency Should Better Manage Its Use of Conmental Protection, U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 1990; tractors," GAO/RCED-85-12, Jan. 4, 1985; "EPA: Contract Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Deci- Management," Hearings before the House Energy and Comsions, Report of the Expert Panel on the Role of Science at merce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, EPA, EPA, 1992; Environmental Research and DevelopMarch 4,19, and July 8,1992, Serial No. 102-138; "The EPA ment: Strengthen the Federal Infrastructure, Carnegie Com- Laboratory Structure," Hearing before the House Science, mission, 1992; Research to Protect, Restore, and Manage the Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Technology, EnEnvironment, National Research Council, 1993; Assess- vironment, and Aviation, June 23, 1994; and "Getting the ment of the Scientific and Technical Laboratories and Fa- Job Done, The Use of Intramural and Extramural Recilities of the U.S. EPA, MITRE Corp., May 1994; An SAB Re- sources at the U.S. EPA," National Academy of Public Adport: Review of the MITRE Corp. Draft Report on the EPA ministration, November 1994. Laboratory Study, U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, Research Strategy Advisory Council, May 1994; A Review, Evaluation and Critique of a Study of EPA Laboratories by the References MITRE Corporation and Additional Commentary on EPA Sci-(1) Johnson, J. Environ Set Technol. 1996, 30, 282A. ence and Technology Programs, National Academy of Pub- (2) Newman, A. Environ Sci. Technol. 1995, 29, 126A-129A. lic Administration, June 1994; Setting Priorities, Getting Re- (3) Office of Research and Development Workforce '91 .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, DC, 1991. sults: A New Direction for EPA, National Academy of Public Administration, April 1995; Interim Report of the Committee on Research and Peer Review in EPA, National ReJeff Johnson is an associate editor on the Washington search Council, March 1995; and Interim Report of the Com- staffofES&T.
Notes
VOL. 30, NO. 11, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 9 7 A
