Research Threatened at Smithsonian

At the center of the fight is Smithsonian secretary Lawrence Small, who critics charge has given donors too much influence over exhibits, hobbled research across the institution, and exhibited managerial priorities more appropriate to a business than to a public institution whose mission centers on research and education. Small became Smithsonian secretary in January 2000.

"What is happening [at the Smithsonian] today should concern scientists everywhere," wrote William Schultz in an editorial published in Chemical and Engineering News. "Managers who don't understand science are making decisions that could destroy this proud institution."

In June 2000, Small caused comment when he appointed Lucy Spelman, a young veterinarian with few of the expected qualifications, as director of the National Zoo. Last April, Spelman and Small announced that they would close the National Zoo's Conservation and Research Center, a facility in Front Royal, Virginia, respected internationally for its work with endangered species. After public outcry, including strong opposition from several members of Congress and from scientists both in and outside the Smithsonian, the plan was shelved.

As soon as the zoo controversy died down, another broke out. The Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and a group of scholars at the National Museum of American History all criticized an agreement between the Smithsonian and the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation that allowed Reynolds to choose the topic and help select an advisory committee for the permanent exhibit her $38 million gift will fund. The exhibit is to be a "hall of achievers" that showcases high-achieving Americans. The groups affirmed their commitment to the standards for history exhibits endorsed by a number of historical organizations, which state in part that "[e]xhibits should be founded on scholarship, marked by intellectual integrity, and subjected to rigorous peer review."

Equally serious are concerns about Small's reorganization plans, which would reportedly take research departments out of individual museums and consolidate them in several research centers whose staffs would report to his central office. Pointing to Small's earlier transfer of research staff from the National Zoo to the Conservation and Research Center and his subsequent attempt to close that center, some critics see this plan as a first step in the eventual elimination of research staff positions and programs. Others say that by separating research from education and public programs, Small would avoid scrutiny from Congress, which approves line items in the museums' budgets, and would meet with less resistance from the public, which is more likely to oppose cuts at a much-loved museum than at an unfamiliar research center. In May, the director of the National Museum of Natural History abruptly resigned, saying that he could not enthusiastically support Small's reorganization plans.

In July, the Smithsonian's board of regents responded to the widespread criticism by creating an advisory panel of nationally recognized scientists, including six researchers from the Smithsonian Institution, to examine the state of scientific research at the Smithsonian and to make recommendations for future research plans. Congress, which oversees the federal portion of the Smithsonian's budget, has inserted language into the budget preventing the institution from making any closures until the panel has made its recommendations. The Center for Materials Research and Education, a facility whose staff performs research on conservation and preservation, had also been put on the closure list.

 Printer-Friendly Page