Closer to a compromise on the direction of environmental research.

The Committee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE) was created in 1990 "to improve the scientific basis for making decisions on environmental issues," possibly through the establishment of a separate institute devoted to the environmental sciences. But while the goals proposed for the National Institute for the Environment were universally applauded, Congress was averse to adding a new agency to the federal bureaucracy. Recently, a compromise plan has been proposed that could expand the science base without having to create a new agency. On 29 July 1999, the National Science Board approved an interim report recommending an expanded program of environmental research and research planning, education, and scientific assessment with a funding target of an additional $1 billion over five years. The report stresses the importance of environmental research in formulating environmental protection programs and contains 12 recommendations intended to enhance and complement existing research activities in environmental sciences and engineering. If the National Science Foundation implements the recommendations in the report and if Congress appropriates funds for that purpose, the need for additional funding for new science activities identified by the CNIE should be satisfied.

I Research l f ii n his 9 July 1970 message to Congress accompanying the plan to create the g U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), President Richard Nixon said, "As concern with the condition of our physical environiment has intensified, it has become increasingly clear that we need to know more about the total environment-land, water, and air. It also has become increasingly clear that only by reorganizing our federal efforts can we develop that knowledge and effectively ensure the protection. developmenit, and enhancement of the total environment itself." Nixon expressed a concept that has become fundamental to environmental policy: that such policy must be based on sound scicnce. Thirtyv years later, people and organizations with concern for environmental quality anid protection continue to stress the need for more and better environmental science and engineering research.
On 29 July 1999, the National Science Board (NSB) a panel of leading scientists appointed by President Bill Clinton to set policy and recommend priorities for programs and funding to the National Science Foundation (NSF)-approved an interim report that recommends an expanded federal program of environmental research, planning, education, and scientific assessment with a funding target of an additional $1 billion over five years. The report, Enzvironmental Science and Engineeringfor the 21st Century: The Role ofthe National Science Foundation, stresses the importance of environmental research in formulating environmental protection programs. It also suggests that the NSF create "a high visibilits NSFwide organizational focal point' foi all inte grated environmental research program.
The NSB is not the first to propose expansion and integration of federal environmental research programs. In 1990, the nongovernmental Committee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE) was created to improve the scientific basis for making decisions on environmenital issues. The CNIE hlas proposed that Congress create an independenit federal agcnicy-tlec National Institute for the Environment-to manage a program of environmental scienccs and engineering research and a nationtal library of environmental science to oscrsee data collection anid disserminationi. 1Fo adxocate for the establishment of suclh ani agencv. the group has over the past decade developed Volume 1 07 Number 12 December 1999 . Environmental Health Perspective Spheres of Influence * Closer to a Compromise a broad constituency that includes the U.S. January 1998 article in Science, Lubchenco budget must support human health effects Chamber of Commerce, 20 state and local wrote, "[T]here is increased realization of the research, ecological research, and engineering chambers, 6 state and local government asso-intimate connections between [ecological] research and technology development. The ciations, 50 environmental advocacy organisystems and human health, the economy, committee argues that $600 million does not zations, and over 100 members of Congress social justice, and national security. The con-go far when allocated among these competfrom both sides of the aisle. However, says cept of what constitutes 'environment' is ing needs for new data, particularly since the Peter Saudry, executive director of the changing rapidly." In exchange for public agency has decided to put the greatest CNIE, "After several years of pushing the funding, Lubchenco urged all scientists to emphasis on public health, leaving less [National Institute for the Environment] as a produce "more comprehensive information, money for expensive environmental science new federal agency, we found ourselves in understanding, and technologies for society and engineering research projects. the 'lonely middle.' We had many friends on to move toward a more sustainable bio-Furthermore, the EPA is a regulatory agency the right and many friends on the left who sphere-one which is ecologically sound, eco-and needs sound data on which to develop believed in the concepts advocated by the nomically feasible, and socially just." To this regulations to protect air, land, water, and CNIE. Unfortunately, we couldn't find a end, the NSB report calls for both interdisci-human health from countless potential hazcompromise on the issue of creating a new plinary and long-term research and for envi-ards. Thus, although the EPA has signififederal agency." According cantly expanded its to Saudry, the goals pro-[Wie need to know more about the total environmentresearch grants programs posed for the new agency land, water, and air. It also has become increasingly clear over the past three years were not at issue; rather, to $100 million per Congress was averse to that only by reorganizing our federal efforts can we year, it still is not possiadding a new agency to develop that knowledge and effectively ensure the ble to fully fund all the the federal bureaucracy. p outstanding research The NSB report may rep-protection, development, and enhancement of the total proposals submitted by resent a compromise plan environment itself. Preswicitet Ric.ard Nixon independent, nonagency that could expand the fed-scientists. Because of its eral environmental science base without the ronmental education, an environmental need for short-term, issue-specific data, only addition of a new federal agency. information network, and coordinated inter-about one-third of the EPA's grants support The CNIE had approached the NSF staff national partnerships among related federal long-term studies in basic ecological research. in 1997 about their willingness to adopt their agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
Finally, although the EPA has developed an proposal and implement it. The CNIE was Th outstanding organization of laboratories with successful at that time in getting Congress to e Report staff scientists who conduct the majority of direct the NSF to study how it would estab-Although the NSB report recognizes that the the research supported by the agency, basic lish an institute for the environment. A reso-federal government makes a significant con-research that is not directly related to immelution was then put before the NSB that tribution to environmental science and engi-diate environmental issues generally must be endorsed the need for more crosscutting neering research, it stresses the inadequacy of assigned low priority. research assessments but fell short of an ambi-the funding available to generate scientific The EPA has not officially commented tious program of research, education, and data for use in setting environmental polion the recommendation to boost the nationinformation acquisition and dissemination.
cies. The NSF estimates that it spends al investment in environmental sciences and The resolution passed but such limited action approximately $600 million on environmen-engineering research in another agency, but was not sufficient to satisfy all the board tal research annually. The EPA research bud-Kathy Melbourne, a spokesperson for the members. NSB member Jane Lubchenco get is also about $600 million. But the enviagency, notes, "It is not unusual for other argued for an expansion of NSF environmen-ronmental sciences research agenda is broad federal agencies to conduct environmental tal sciences and engineering research activi-and deep. It encompasses ecological effect research. We will wait until we see a specific ties, and her view prevailed in the NSB. studies in the many plant and animal proposal in the NSF budget for Fiscal Year Chairman Eamon Kelly appointed species, atmospheric and oceanographic 2001. If there is a budget request, it may be Lubchenco to lead a board task force to chemistry and other studies related to global appropriate [for] EPA to comment or to define the role of the NSF in environmental warming, and hydrogeologic investigations help assure that NSF and EPA coordinate science and engineering in the 21st century.
to determine flow and change in the chemi-research planning." It was the report of this task force that was cal composition and toxicity of pollutants Kenneth Olden, director of the NIEHS, adopted by the full board. Although the through subsurface structure. The logistics endorses the NSB report. "I had been asked report has been adopted, it will retain "inter-and equipment needed to conduct these informally by members of Congress if I im" status until public comment is received kinds of research studies in the field are believed that the NIEHS should be the and considered. (The full report and the exec-exceedingly costly. According to the NSF, agency assigned to administer the kinds of utive summary are available on the NSB Web present levels of funding are inadequate to environmental science and engineering grants site at www.nsf.gov/nsb/. Comments can be support all the needed research, and opporas well as information and education efforts sent to TFE@nsf.gov.) tunities to fill important data gaps are being that the CNIE had suggested," he says. "My Lubchenco, a distinguished professor of missed because of a lack of resources. As a first reaction was to say yes but after discuszoology at Oregon State University in result, says the NSF, many environmental sion within [the National Institutes of Corvallis and past president of the American problems continue to worsen.

Health] and the Department of Health and
Association for the Advancement of Science, The CNIE has also continuously voiced Human Services, we decided that, although argues that expanded research in environ-the concern that the EPA's efforts to pursue the need for additional science is clear, the mental sciences and engineering should be the large number of environmental research scope of the research is too far removed from viewed in a broader context than merely pro-and policy questions have been constrained our biomedical core. I was happy to learn that vidin. greater resources for research. In a 23 by inadequate funding. The EPA research the NSF might take on the responsibility." Environmental Health Perspectives * Volume 107, Number 12, December 1999 The NSB report calls for the foundation to "complement and enhance, not duplicate or replace, the extant portfolio of other Federal activities in this area." It recommends that additional funding "primarily go to [grant] awards based on external, peerreviewed national competition, and these investments provide advances in fundamental understanding of environmental systems." The NSF distributes most of its $600 million research budget through investigatorinitiated grants to academic and other nong overnmental scientists. Research proposals are competitive and are evaluated on the basis of scientific merit and relationship to the broad general science and engineering disciplines assigned priority by NSF officials and Congress. The NSB interim report contains 12 recommendations intended to enhance and complement the existing NSF-supported research activities in environmental sciences and engineering. The recommendations ask that the NSF create an "organizational focal point" to identify research gaps, particularly in interdisciplinary research, with budget authority to allocate an 2Scientists additional $200 million per mental hazards on ecological systems and the physical environment would yield data that would substantially improve risk assessments and risk management.
Finally, the interim report proposes that the NSF fund the development of new environmental technologies that protect and preserve natural resources and for development of a plan for the systematic collection of environmental data.

CNIE Response
The initial CNIE response to the interim report was quick and positive. In a news release issued three days after the report was made public, CNIE board members praised the report and called for the NSF to fully implement the recommendations. In the release, Richard Benedict, president of the CNIE, said that if the NSF followed through on the recommendations, "it would help focus science on important environmental problems that people care about." On the surface, this reaction may appear to have been somewhat overstated in light of ietoroduce more comprehens The CNIE provided a less enthusiastic formal response to the interim report in a letter to Lubchenco on 16 September 1999. The CNIE board of directors voiced concern that the report was too vague about how the NSF would organize and manage expanded programs of environmenital science and engineering research. They argued, "Unless the final report unequivocally recommllenids the creationi of an implementinig entity with strong leadership and budgetary authority, there is a significant risk that the objectives of the report will not be achieved." The CNIE was also disappointed that the interim report does not go as far as the comMittee would like in suggesting a completely integrated program of research and the associated collection, maintenance, and distribution of research findings. The CNIE ended its commeints with a promise: "If the NSF leadership accepts the opportunity represented by the NSB report with genuine commitment, and offers a wellconceived plan for implementing the Board's recommendations, the CNIE and its constituents will support its initiatives and will work enthusiastically with NSF to mobilize public year over the next five years tion, understandig nd tehnologes tot s.tyto a w. and political support for toward filling these gaps. t a the needed resources."

New disciplinary research
Finally, in an aninlgrants would be funded and ecologically sound, economically feasible, and socially ouncement released on 27 funding for existing long-October 1999, the organiterm studies would be zation said, "The CNIE increased. More resources would be available the CNIE having been such a strong propo-strongly supports full funding and effective for training and education in environmental nent of a new federal agency with authority implementation of all the National Science science and engineering. In addition, efforts to provide grants to independent scientists Board's recommendations in an integrated would be launched to bring students with for environmental science and engineering fashion. Furthermore, the CNIE is suspendinterests in related fields such as information studies. The group has been deeply commit-ing our call for the creation of a National management, communications, and problem ted to House Bill 2914, a measure that was Institute for the Environment to work in solving into the fields of environmental train-introduced by Representative James Saxton support of the NSF initiative." ing, research, protection, and technology (D-New Jersey)  become an obstacle that likely could not be an election year where one of the key issues is The interim report proposes a research overcome. We began to seriously consider whether Congress will offer a major tax cut or, program in what is termed scientific assess-other strategies to achieve the important goal alternatively, use additional tax money from a ment, defined as "inquiry-based analysis of of increasing environmental research within booming economy to support new federal relevant biological, socioeconomic, and physan agency that would be credible and could programs. The CNIE has an outstanding ical environmental scientific information to also begin to implement the other related track record in lobbying for expanded provide an informed basis for prioritizing sci-aims of the CNIE." In a survey of CNIE environmental science and engineering entific investments and addressing environmembers and supporting institutions, Saudry research. The coming year will test their skills mental issues." This expands the more tradisays, it was clear that most believed that the in influencing federal bureaucrats, presidential tional calls for additional research in environ-NSF met those criteria. The only reservations candidates, and members of Congress. In the mental risk assessment and risk management, voiced in the survey, he says, were the per-meantime, environmental scientists and which are based predominantly on analyses ceptions that the NSF was too heavily engineers stand by with their research proposals of the toxic potential of an environmental focused on disciplinary research and that the ready for submission to whatever federal grant agent for human health and the costs and foundation did not make a rigorous effort to program may emerge to achieve the goal set effectiveness of regulatory or other interven-(as he puts it) "bridge the disconnect by President Nixon 30 years ago.
tions. The NSB suggests that additional between research funding decisions research into the adverse impacts of environ-and societal needs." Dan C. VanderMeer Volume 07 Number 2 December 999 * Environmental Health Perspectives