NASA’s Goals Delete Mention Of Home Planet
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
The New York Times via Factiva
July 22, 2006
From 2002 until this year, NASA’s mission statement, prominently featured in
its budget and planning documents, read: ‘‘To understand and protect our
home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the
next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.’’
In early February, the statement was quietly altered, with the phrase ‘‘to
understand and protect our home planet’’ deleted. In this year’s budget
and planning documents, the agency’s mission is ‘‘to pioneer the future in
space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.’’
David E. Steitz, a spokesman for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, said the aim was to square the statement with President
Bush’s goal of pursuing human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars.
But the change comes as an unwelcome surprise to many NASA scientists, who say
the ‘‘understand and protect’’ phrase was not merely window dressing but
actively influenced the shaping and execution of research priorities.
Without it, these scientists say, there will be far less incentive to
pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like
climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
‘‘We refer to the mission statement in all our research proposals that go out
for peer review, whenever we have strategy meetings,’’ said Philip B.
Russell, a 25-year NASA veteran who is an atmospheric chemist at the Ames
Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. ‘‘As civil servants, we’re paid
to carry out NASA’s mission. When there was that very easy-to-understand
statement that our job is to protect the planet, that made it much easier
to justify this kind of work.’’
Several NASA researchers said they were upset that the change was made at NASA
headquarters without consulting the agency’s 19,000 employees or informing
them ahead of time.
Though the ‘‘understand and protect’’ phrase was deleted in February, when the
Bush administration submitted budget and planning documents to Congress,
its absence has only recently registered with NASA employees.
Mr. Steitz, the NASA spokesman, said the agency might have to improve internal
communications, but he defended the way the change was made, saying it
reflected the management style of Michael D. Griffin, the administrator at
the agency.
‘‘Strategic planning comes from headquarters down,’’ he said, and added, ‘‘I
don’t think there was any mal-intent or idea of exclusion.’’
The line about protecting the earth was added to the mission statement in 2002
under Sean O’Keefe, the first NASA administrator appointed by President
Bush, and was drafted in an open process with scientists and employees
across the agency.
In the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which established the agency in
1958, the first objective of the agency was listed as ‘‘the expansion of
human knowledge of the earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and
space.’’
And since 1972, when NASA launched the first Landsat satellite to track
changes on the earth’s surface, the agency has been increasingly involved
in monitoring the environment and as a result has been immersed in
political disputes over environmental policy and spending, said W. Henry
Lambright, a professor of public administration and political science at
Syracuse University who has studied the trend.
The shift in language echoes a shift in the agency’s budgets toward space
projects and away from earth missions, a shift that began in 2004, the
year Mr. Bush announced his vision of human missions to the Moon and
beyond.
The ‘‘understand and protect’’ phrase was cited repeatedly by James E. Hansen,
a climate scientist at NASA who said publicly last winter that he was
being threatened by political appointees for speaking out about the
dangers posed by greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Hansen’s comments started a flurry of news media coverage in late January;
on Feb. 3, Mr. Griffin issued a statement of ‘‘scientific openness.’’
The revised mission statement was released with the agency’s proposed 2007
budget on Feb. 6. But Mr. Steitz said Dr. Hansen’s use of the phrase and
its subsequent disappearance from the mission statement was ‘‘pure
coincidence.’’
Dr. Hansen, who directs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a NASA
office, has been criticized by industry-backed groups and Republican
officials for associating with environmental campaigners and his
endorsement of Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
Dr. Hansen said the change might reflect White House eagerness to shift the
spotlight away from global warming.
‘‘They’re making it clear that they have the authority to make this change,
that the president sets the objectives for NASA, and that they prefer that
NASA work on something that’s not causing them a problem,’’ he said.
Chart: ‘‘Changing Missions’’
NASA recently changed its mission statement to omit any language about
protecting the planet.
From NASA’s 2005 strategic plan
NASA’S MISSION
To understand and protect our home planet,
To explore the universe and search for life,
To inspire the next generation of explorers As only NASA can.
From NASA’s 2006 strategic plan
NASA’S MISSION
To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research.
(Source by NASA)(pg. A10) Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company. All
Rights Reserved.