Future budgets for astronomy?

[Tog]

I can't go into details why, but I'm wondering about the potential for budget cuts in astronomy in the coming years.

I'm in a discussion with someone who says that the governments of both the US and Europe will cut all funding for astronomy, resulting in no launches for research, and the closing of all ground based telescopes.*

He's stating an opinion, but he's stating is as fact. I think this is just silly, but I'd like something to back up my opinion.

How reliant is astronomy on government funding?
If funding is completely cut off, how much of an impact would it really have?

*I really can't go into his reasoning on the open forum, for a number of reasons. If it's absolutely critical that you know why he said this, I'll answer via PM, but it will probably come off as an ad-hom.

[StupendousMan]

In the US, the funding for most large telescopes -- Keck, Magellan, Hobby-Eberle -- comes from a variety of sources: the federal government, mostly from NSF, state governments (in a few cases) and individual universities, or consortia of universities. The universities solicit donations from wealthy alumni to pay for the up-front cost of big items.

If the federal and state governments cut funding for astronomy, then (big) new telescopes and instruments will not be built. That's not _such_ a big deal.

What _is_ a big deal is the funding for most research projects in astronomy, which comes from the NSF and, to a lesser extent, NASA. Some researchers depend on federal money to pay their salaries; if the money dries up, their jobs disappear. Other researchers (myself included) have university jobs to pay their salaries, but rely upon federal grants to pay graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. If federal money disappears, the US model of graduate education would have to change in a big way. In the short term, one would see a very steep drop in the number of graduate students and new Ph.D.s.

Of course, in some ways, that wouldn't be entirely a bad thing. Astronomers produce many more new astronomers each year than can be accommodated within the astronomical community.

[Amber Robot]

Astronomers produce many more new astronomers each year than can be accommodated within the astronomical community.

Something should probably be done about this regardless of government cuts to spending.

[StupendousMan]

Well, if each astronomer agreed to have no more than 1.5(*) graduate students over the course of his entire career, the problem wouldn't exist.

(the 0.5 is for the students who leave the field for some reason)

[Ken G]

There is another issue here, which is the whole concept of "Big Science." Big science is the science that is done at CERN, or by the Hubble Space Telescope, or the Spitzer telescope, or the upcoming James Webb telescope, and also extends to cheaper missions like the Mars rover missions or basically anything that involves sending something into orbit or constructing a fundamentally new facility, all of which absolutely requires government involvement or it simply wouldn't happen (with perhaps the sole exception of the SETI institute, but that's not really an astrophysical undertaking in the first place). So if we had no government funding, astronomy as a whole would look very different, it would not just be harder to bring new scientists into the field to replace the departing ones.

Currently, the big science vs. small science infrastructure follows the model that governments help fund both big projects that no individual or even university could do on its own, and also distribute grant money into all those individuals and universities to keep them viable on the smaller scales of an individual or small group. Granted, one can get by on a university salary centered on teaching, but the research would definitely suffer dramatically if there was no grant money, both because there would be many fewer researchers to communicate findings to each other, and also because there would be less ability to justify time and money spent on research and travel and page charges and things that don't directly impact where student tuition goes but does establish the importance and reputation of a university.

So the bottom line is, whatever you think is the correct partition of government resources into big vs. small science (and no matter how much you may bemoan the way the James Webb telescope threatens to eat everyone's lunch and dinner too), eliminating government funding of astronomy would have a catastrophic influence on the rate that U.S. and European scientists discover new things about our universe. Perhaps your friend thinks we can just let the Chinese figure it all out from this point on.

[Ken G]

Something should probably be done about this regardless of government cuts to spending.

I'm not convinced there is a problem here to solve. Shall we dramatically cut teaching of music or dance because we are doing more than just replacing the teachers? It is perfectly natural for every teacher to generate a hierarchy of students over their careers-- the vast majority they teach purely to edify, inform, and entertain, then there is a more select group they teach because they are going to apply the skills in some way related to their career, and then there is the extremely select group (maybe as small as one or two) who are the "star pupils" who are designed to go on to actually replace (or even eclipse) their teacher.

So the only issue here is, at what level in this hierarchy should we convey the various degrees (bachelor's, master's, and doctorate)? The key there is simply truth in advertising-- we must make sure that if it takes 4 years to get a bachelor's and 10 (or more) to get a Ph.D., the extra education that goes into that Ph.D. is actually going to be worth it for that individual. This should be true no matter what career they end up in-- it is not any kind of requirement that they must replace their mentor if they get a Ph.D.

[ngc3314]

Something should probably be done about this regardless of government cuts to spending.

A very serious issue, and one which some of us haven't been able to come up with a good response to despite much soul-searching and interviewing with students at various levels. I don't think we have enough information in most cases to know at the time of grad school application who will or will not succeed in a research career. On the other hand, no one gains from a population of embittered graduates with no realistic job prospects in the field that they have just invested years in training for.

(That 1.5 does need to grow by a factor of a few anyway - many astronomers at least teach at many institutions which don't grant Ph.D.s in the field. This does not change the fallacy of exponential growth. Analogy to big-name sports programs in universities omitted for being too obvious, as I look at the 102,000-seat stadium out my office window.)

[Amber Robot]

This should be true no matter what career they end up in-- it is not any kind of requirement that they must replace their mentor if they get a Ph.D.

The problem is that there is no effort in the field to prepare students for anything other than going on in the field even though all mentors know that the majority will not become tenured faculty members. I see the emotional struggle that people go through when they are forced to consider leaving the field. Many have no idea what else to do or even how their skills are applicable to the outside world.

If even a modicum of effort were put in to discussing alternative careers and giving aid to students in that direction I would consider it a huge improvement. As it is, I've seen university departments that keep track of where their students go after graduation and they only keep track of the academics. The ones who leave the field are basically considered gone.

[Tog]

Thanks for the replies. I figured there was a good deal of money coming from private sources as far keeping school scopes running, but I hadn't considered the cost of graduate students.

[astromark]

I can't go into details why, but I'm wondering about the potential for budget cuts in astronomy in the coming years.

I'm in a discussion with someone who says that the governments of both the US and Europe will cut all funding for astronomy, resulting in no launches for research, and the closing of all ground based telescopes.*

He's stating an opinion, but he's stating is as fact. I think this is just silly, but I'd like something to back up my opinion.

How reliant is astronomy on government funding?
If funding is completely cut off, how much of an impact would it really have?

*I really can't go into his reasoning on the open forum, for a number of reasons. If it's absolutely critical that you know why he said this, I'll answer via PM, but it will probably come off as an ad-hom.

We try to avoid political opinion and discussion of political doctrines... and that's fare and fine...

You can see by the wisdom displayed thus far.. That astronomical research is not doomed to oblivion.
If some budget cuts bite hard... With a little indulgence. We are in a bit of bother when speaking of economics.
Yes more people seek employment than there are places for... That's nothing new is it ?
Yes its his opinion., and may not be so correct. Astronomy programs are more than government money.
To endorse all that KenG has said in reply would be my view also.
There will be astronomy research... Just maybe a little less than WE might like... Spreading the dollars thinner is not our best way forward., but as a amateur astronomer. I can see the need for 'other' ways of spending our dollars... 'darn'.

[Ken G]

The problem is that there is no effort in the field to prepare students for anything other than going on in the field even though all mentors know that the majority will not become tenured faculty members. I see the emotional struggle that people go through when they are forced to consider leaving the field. Many have no idea what else to do or even how their skills are applicable to the outside world.

Yes, I think that's the key issue right there-- instead of trying to cut down on PhDs in fields like astronomy, we should make more effort to tailor PhD-level education to a broader market, so students don't have to "redefine" themselves when they "get out." What a PhD is really supposed to be is a degree that indicates a person is capable of doing independent research-- there is plenty of that done in industry, and industry does not necessarily train for that themselves. Another example is software engineering-- an astronomy PhD often develops advanced computer skills, but if they are going to end up as computer scientists, shouldn't they have instead gotten PhDs in computer science? Not necessarily-- a PhD in computer science certainly suggests that someone has a profound understanding of how to use computers as tools, but they may not have as profound an understanding of what to use computers as tools for. Someone who instead got a PhD doing astronomy research may be less versed in software and hardware architectures, but they may have a better idea of how to use a computer to address a real-world question. As a random example, although David Ferrucci of "Watson" fame is a PhD in computer science, people on his team may have other types of PhDs, like Gerry Tesauro who is a physics PhD. No one would say Tesauro is a failure because he is not a university physicist-- he's done just fine with his physics PhD background, and just might be having more fun deciding Watson's wagering strategies than we would have in front of a university classroom.

As it is, I've seen university departments that keep track of where their students go after graduation and they only keep track of the academics. The ones who leave the field are basically considered gone.

Yeah, that's just silly, and very short-sighted.

[StupendousMan]

Yes, I think that's the key issue right there-- instead of trying to cut down on PhDs in fields like astronomy, we should make more effort to tailor PhD-level education to a broader market, so students don't have to "redefine" themselves when they "get out."

No problem. All we have to do is talk to our colleagues and convince them that they should tell their graduate students to spend less time working on their research, and more time learning how to teach, or communicate effectively, or whatever.

That should be easy. After all, universities will reward faculty who don't publish many papers or bring in many grants, but who do send lots of well prepared graduate students out into industry.

[Ken G]

Some rewards are just our own. The ones that matter, anyway.

[Amber Robot]

No problem. All we have to do is talk to our colleagues and convince them that they should tell their graduate students to spend less time working on their research, and more time learning how to teach, or communicate effectively, or whatever.

C'mon, it's clear that there's no need to improve upon astronomers abilities to communicate effectively. Just look at how they all deliver such fantastic talks at conferences.

[ngc3314]

they should tell their graduate students to spend less time working on their research, and more time learning how to teach, or communicate effectively, or whatever.
=

Unworldly as I can be at times, I actually had this conversation with some of our grad students once. I was slightly taken aback at the strength, as well as unanimity of their response - more or less, "Wait a minute. If I work really really hard I might be just barely good enough to get a job following my passion. Now you want me to be distracted, adding additional topics of study, quite possibly pushing me back across the just-barely line???"

Another issue, though, is the psychology of really knowing how tight the academic job market is. I've known students who heard it all without really hearing it. One waltzed into a meeting confident of getting a juicy fellowship after an interview, then saw 80 highly-qualified people from schools higher up the totem pole signed up to interview. He came back from that meeting a changed individual (and got much more serious about the quality of his dissertation). I've heard students tell me that we couldn't be serious about the job market if we only said it once - and another who said to shut up about it already, he got it the first time and thought we were poisoning the waters by so much as a half-hour roundtable discussion of employment.

[EigenState]

Greetings,

Quite obviously, none of the problems that have been mentioned are restricted to astronomy. Substantive budget reductions will impact all of the physical sciences and the biological sciences although possibly to a somewhat smaller extent because of the perception of their practical significance. The Arts will suffer even more. Politicians control the budgets of the principal funding sources, and politicians frequently, if not generally, fail to comprehend the contributions of fundamental research, or even the future practical contributions thereof. Pursuit of fundamental research within industry is highly questionable as is well illustrated by the demise of Bell Laboratories.

Preparing any student for a career is also problematic. We can do so only within the context of the current or immediately foreseeable labor market and economic circumstances. Yet those students will not be entering the job market for years. Another problem is the attitude of the best students, that is those who are most likely to make major contributions in the future. They may be very well aware that job opportunities within their chosen field are meager. Yet virtually every one of them will tell you that they will be the one that successfully bucks the odds. Personally, I see no way to effectively counter such confidence without breaking their spirits. Who am I to tell them they are wrong? All I have is statistical evidence, and all I can do is make sure they are aware of that evidence.

I would argue that the problem can only truly be addressed by challenging and objective evaluation of the values that a society holds.

Best regards,
EigenState

[Amber Robot]

They may be very well aware that job opportunities within their chosen field are meager. Yet virtually every one of them will tell you that they will be the one that successfully bucks the odds.

Yes, and until respect is given to a person who might consider a job other than the one they have to "buck the odds" to get, people are going to continue to have their spirits broken. There are many jobs, even within astronomy, that a PhD astronomer can and should do that aren't faculty positions at major research institutions. But I continually see those positions looked down upon and the people who take them considered to be failures.

[EigenState]

Yes, and until respect is given to a person who might consider a job other than the one they have to "buck the odds" to get, people are going to continue to have their spirits broken. There are many jobs, even within astronomy, that a PhD astronomer can and should do that aren't faculty positions at major research institutions. But I continually see those positions looked down upon and the people who take them considered to be failures.

Greetings,

A perceived pecking order of relative merit is ubiquitous in all professions and all human endeavors. If not in comparison of appointments, it will be in comparison of conferences attended, seminars presented, number of graduate students within a research group, or some other contrived measure of professional merit manufactured to bolster the egos of some. That is not something that faculty can prepare their students to endure, nor is it relevant to funding concerns. Nor, in my personal experience, is it a perspective adopted by the very best within the discipline.

Best regards,
EigenState

[Amber Robot]

Greetings,

A perceived pecking order of relative merit is ubiquitous in all professions and all human endeavors. If not in comparison of appointments, it will be in comparison of conferences attended, seminars presented, number of graduate students within a research group, or some other contrived measure of professional merit manufactured to bolster the egos of some. That is not something that faculty can prepare their students to endure, nor is it relevant to funding concerns. Nor, in my personal experience, is it a perspective adopted by the very best within the discipline.

Best regards,
EigenState

I do understand that the heirarchy to which you refer. I'm not saying that should change. What I'm saying is that attitudes about it within the field should change. That will result in happier people at all levels. The kind of attitude that bothers me in the field is well represented by your statement of "nor is it relevant to funding concerns."