Will Merging U.S. Science Agencies Increase Innovation?

By Dennis D. McDonald

I read the news report Merger of US earth sciences agencies proposed by AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid with mixed feelings. The report describes a proposal to combine two US government agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Ordinarily I would applaud an effort to streamline and simplify government operations, especially in a situation where there is a potential overlap or duplication of policy formulation and administrative effort. An important question, however, is whether such a merger might actually promote innovation and creativity among the thousands of researchers and technologists who are employed by these two organizations. 

I don’t really know if the two organizations have a set of well defined operations that can be rationally combined so that functional overlap is reduced. Researchers and technologists employed by these two organizations already have a wide variety of important professional relationships with other domestic and foreign individuals and organizations, both inside and outside the USGS and NOAA spheres. Maintaining such relationships, irrespective of how many organizations are issuing the paychecks, will be critical to the flow of ideas and information.

Merging these two organizations is not going to have a quick or significant impact on these relationships and the likelihood that they will lead to new ideas. Instead, it’s in the areas of policy and infrastructure where I would concentrate. For example, picking up ideas from my post Using Collaboration Technologies to Accelerate Innovation in Federally Funded R&D Programs, I would concentrate administrative energies on increasing the likelihood that departmental employees will communicate and interact with anyone they deem relevant to their work, no matter where.

The individuals and teams in these organizations currently do their work through a large number of departments, professions, associations, R&D agencies, companies, consultants, contractors, and vendors. It therefore makes great sense to encourage people to join and participate in both formal and informal organizations and communities, including those supported by collaboration tools and social networking software.

Making “cross-boundary” communication a priority, and helping it to happen, will have more impact on creativity and innovation than any back-office reorganization.

• Copyright (c) 2008 by Dennis D. McDonald . Email me at ddmcd@yahoo.com.

Comments

[Jerome McDonald]

I agree with much of what you say here with regard to interactions with other scientists. All you have to do is read Perspectives in Science magazine, or watch Nova occasionally to see how scientists in different fields often bolster their startling insights with the results of work in other fields. I would think that meetings on a subject where anyone with however tenuously related studies often prove to be a really good way to highlight new research directions.

With regard to the merger of USGS and NOAA, I have trouble with your statement in the second paragraph about the virtues of combining policy directions and administration. There may be similar efforts of each organization in using satellite imaging, say, in their main work. However, the primary consumers of oceanic and fisheries research are surely different from the primary consumers of geologic and volcano research. I think that the policies of an organization must focus on benefits to its customers. This would be true for a governmental organization, and a commercial organization.

I also think that the sheer size of an administrative structure trying to manage a very large organization can have bad results. One example that comes to mind is FEMA. FEMA, according to all accounts, performed very well in Florida in helping after the last big hurricane before Katrina. After being swallowed in the grotesque Department of Homeland Security, the response to Katrina was reprehensible. The usual administrative dynamic of getting attention and approval from higher management works against a quick and deft response, and even invites interference. Now FEMA once again is getting good press from its response to the flooding in the Midwest. It would be interesting to see a case study in the future about the changes leading to this return to good response to a crisis. But I suspect that FEMA's enhanced response is probably due to the brass getting out of the way. It probably has more autonomy now.

You can see that I am rather skeptical of the supposed economies of scale as applied to an organization formulating policy and controlling activities. You have to wonder about whether an administrative staff would have any overlap in understanding fisheries research versus research into seismic activity. I would think that a more fruitful direction would be to urge cooperation and communication among collegues, and to foster networking among different organizations.