No NASA Conference Travel in 2009

A literal reading of the NASA Authorization Act implies a significant cutback of astronomy conferences in 2009.
Warning e-mail, pending clarification, has gone out, and people have already done some canceling of planned travel.

Something bad snuck into the H.R. 6063 NASA Authorization Act (2008) [static link to pdf] during Senate/House conference (see original text here).

Specifically section 1121.

SEC. 1121. LIMITATION ON FUNDING FOR CONFERENCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- There are authorized to be appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any expenses related to conferences, including conference programs, travel costs, and related expenses. No funds authorized under this Act may be used to support a Space Flight Awareness Launch Honoree Event conference. The total amount of the funds available under this Act for other Space Flight Awareness Honoree-related activities in fiscal year 2009 may not exceed 1/2 of the total amount of funds from all sources obligated or expended on such activities in fiscal year 2008.

Ok... there is also a nasty clause b) about oversight.

here is the scoop on the Space Flight Awareness Launch Honoree Event (2007) - sounds like somebody in Congress (staffer) got annoyed and decided it was excessive.
Fine, they can't have such a big party next year.

Problem is the first bit: "...authorized to be appropriated not more than $5,000,000 for any expenses related to conferences, including conference programs, travel costs, and related expenses."

As written, this represents a big cut in NASA spending on conference travel, like over 2/3 cut.
That, in and of itself, is, shall we say, counterproductive.

First of all, NASA scientists need to present material at meetings.
Secondly, NASA scientists, and administrative staff, need to be current on ongoing research as it relates to space science and engineering.
That does mean a lot of travel, and yes, it costs a lot of money. It also includes paying people per diems, and it is generally good to let them go to conference banquets, because the schmoozing, tiresome as it is, is actually important for long term relations and spontaneous social networking.
Oh, and in the current economy, hotels and airlines could really use the cash.

But, unfortunately, it does not stop there. E-mail has gone out, warning grant awardees that they may not use any NASA funding for conference travel for any grant with a start date after Oct 1st 2008.
It is clear that the detailed interpretation of this section is not conclusive, so grant managers are erring on the conservative side.

So right now, any grants administered from NASA HQ or JPL are in effective travel ban - I don't see grant managers approving travel until they get some sense of how much they need to cut over the whole year. So this includes NASA center awarded funding, and, I infer grants related to mission science and ROSES grants like the astrophysical theory grants and astronomy data programs.

Current interpretation, as I have heard it, would exempt Hubble and Chandra grants, because they are administered by STSCI and SAO, but not Spitzer because they come through JPL. This is not clear though, and may change. Presumably this also applies to NASA funded graduate students. Not clear how postdocs with grants with explicit travel awards would be affected, they may be the ones who get first dibs at the total travel amount.

Right now this is for 2008-9 only, and the actual interpretation is subject to revision, but if it holds, then conferences will be sparsely attended in future. NASA provides most of the funding for astronomy and astrophysics in the US.
Now, some funding is still clearly available for travel, but having to ask every time is a pain in the ass, and a lot of people just won't try (I know some people are already canceling trips to this december's AGU); further, if I were a NASA grant manager, I'd ruthlessly hold back most of the funding for NASA employees on the expectation that university scientists can access other agency funding, endowments and assorted slush funds.

If it is only one year, it won't be too bad, maybe 10-20% reduction in attendance; people will hold over previous year awards, do some rebalancing between grants and generally juggle things to keep attendance going.
If this provision rolls into future years, and to know whether it does it is important to know who introduced it into the reconciled bill, then conference attendance will fall at about 20% per year for the next three years, and then level off at maybe 30-40% of current levels.

Conferences are important.
Arguably there are too many and they are too lavish, but they are productive and an important way to communicate, particularly so for junior scientists. The best way for a senior graduate student or postdoc to get known is to give a good talk at an important meeting. It is where social networking takes place, collaborations form and people catch up on developments.
The reason for conferences to be at "exotic" locales, is twofold: one is that is where the hotel facilities are; the other is that people are jaded and need incentive to attend any particular conference, which is an argument for there being too many conferences to choose from.
However, putting together a conference is a lot of work, people generally do not do it gratuitously and the organizers effectively donate their time.
Further, for a good conference, it helps if people are in a good mood.

Which brings me to the other bad news.
The current interpretation of the law, extends to panels.
NASA runs a lot of oversight and funding panels, which typically involve a number of university scientists being brought to some undisclosed location and locked in a small room to work really hard.
The interpretation of the law, as it currently is, suggests that NASA can not provide any food for panels, if it does, it counts as conference spending and comes under the new Congressional oversight.

So no coffee for panels?
That will go over well. Oh, and it will slow the panels down by 10-20%. People will have to go out for breakfast, lunch and coffee breaks. Per diems will be higher and time will be wasted as people wander off to find a starbucks. Shoveling coffee straight into the small locked rooms keeps people at it.
Makes it much less attractive to serve on a panel.
Also explains the off-the-cuff comment I heard recently, that NASA was contemplating having panels staffed by NASA employees only.

Solving this by going to NASA employee only panels would also be counterproductive.
Panel service is good for a lot of scientists, gives people an insight into the process and snapshot of the state of the competition. Also, quite frankly, NASA scientists have a distorted view of the process and this would affect funding to university PIs, science is done differently in the centers and at the universities, and a lot of NASA staff soon forget the difference. The difference is healthy for the community.

I hope this clause will be narrowly interpreted, and university funded scientists will be exempt from the travel cap under the final interpretation.
I also really hope that it does not reappear in future NASA authorization acts, it will be bad enough to have the NASA employee travel cut back this year.