slightly longer cycle. Secretary Ripley recognized early 

 that the Museum had financial problems. Access to 

 National Science Foundation Funds had been cut off 

 by Congress in the early 1960s, but while Ripley was 

 able to persuade Congress to increase the appropria- 

 tions for research to the Institution to compensate for 

 the loss, these funds were removed by Congress in the 

 early 1970s. 



Fiscal year 1970 was a downer, financially. "When I 

 first came to the Smithsonian," Ripley stated in July, 

 "I was concerned with our inability to compete with 

 other institutions for highly qualified scientists because 

 of salary levels. Now we have succeeded in attracting 

 a number of highly competent, indeed distinguished 

 scientists to our professional staff in the National Mu- 

 seum of Natural History."' Yet, he added in the 1970 

 Smithsonian Year, "If ivory towers existed here earlier, 

 they have long since crumbled, spilling their occupants 

 into the midst of concerns that involve us all. . . . De- 

 creasing resources in the past few years for carrying 

 forward research-curation-education programs in the 

 Museum became a major preoccupation in the latter 

 half of the year. Reductions in 'buying power' caused 

 by near-level funding, inflation, and general pay raises, 

 have been met in recent years by progressive reorgan- 

 ization."^ According to one source, 98 percent of the 

 budget in this fiscal year was allocated to salaries. One 

 could pick almost any year during the 1920s or 1930s 

 and read similar stories of financial distress. 



Nevertheless, in Ripley's view, much had been ac- 

 complished in change ot attitude in the five years since 

 he took over: 



Scientists and scholars can only be appropriately 

 treated as professionals; they must be accorded 

 latitude in order to act responsiblv as masters of 

 their domains of subject matter knowledge. One of 

 my first aims as Secretary was to provide that 

 department chairman serve in rotation "from the 

 ranks" so to speak, and for limited terms, in order 

 to minimize the hazard of an internal seniority 

 system that might block initiative and convert 

 scientists into permanent administrators. Research 

 support is made available to staff members in the 

 form of grants and from appropriated funds, so 

 that they will act responsibly as principal 

 investigators treating scarce resources as wisely as 

 they would ftmds of their own. I put an end to 

 pre-publication review of professional publications 

 by the Secretary, preferring to read them as 

 reprints from colleagues rather than submissions 

 for administrative clearance. We cancelled a 

 burdensome annual report required of each staff 

 member about his research because it served 

 unnecessary and merely administrative purposes. 

 Burdensome formal reporting can be no substitute 

 for consultation and constant awareness by 

 supervisors. Evaluation of professional 



accomplishment is now conducted by committees 

 of peers formed in major research units, known as 

 "Professional Accomplishment Evaluation 

 Committees." Staff members have been 

 encouraged to teach in universities on official time 

 (without added compensation) and to request 

 changes of their duty station at intervals so as to be 

 able to spend a year in study and research without 

 distractions of daily office routine, an equivalent to 

 a university sabbatical. Travel to professional 

 meetings has been encouraged." 



All the items mentioned were important, but the two 

 with the longest-lasting effects have been rotation of 

 department chairmen and peer reviews. The change 

 to chairmanship from lifetime head permitted more 

 flexibility, though it also increased the paperwork, al- 

 ready swollen by the shift of administrative control from 

 the divisional tciward the departmental level. The peer 

 review is the most important single factor in promoting 

 research activities, for everyone on the staff knows that 

 published papers are what one's peers evaluate. 



Research Vs. Service 



Under Wetmore and his predecessors, research cer- 

 tainly was considered important and was encouraged. 

 However, the prevailing view appeared to be that the 

 functions of the Museum were those of a service or- 

 ganization — to increase the collections and care for them, 

 and to answer all public inqtiiries. John Ewers, an 

 authority on American Indians, notes that Herbert 

 Krieger would not allow him to forward any inquiries 

 to others, so that he was forced to answer questions on 

 subjects as far afield as African ethnology. Research 

 could be done only in the time left after inquiries were 

 answered. This view of the function of the Museum 

 curatorial staff began to change in the 1950s. Today, 

 the collections are not always cared for directly by the 

 curators; the degree of curatorial involvement varies 

 among the departments. Inquiries are often answered 

 by assistants. The currently prevailing view is that the 

 scientific staff should be involved primarily in research. 



Congressional Oversight 



Another milestone or millstone the Institution faced in 

 1970 was the general oversight hearings held by Con- 

 gress. Previously the Institution had appeared only in 

 connection with congressional appropriations hearings. 

 No one knew what to expect. By dint of determined 

 investigation, the General Accounting Office showed 

 that some money appropriated for construction in the 

 Museum, totalling just under $44,000, had been used 

 instead for construction in the Arts and Industries 

 Building. This had been done so that the registrar could 

 be moved and to provide an extra office for entomol- 

 ogists. The misapplication was viewed sympathetically 

 by Congressman John Brademas, who said, "When I 

 think of what goes on in the Department of Defense, 



118 



The Exhibits 



