Joseph Taylor's Remarks at the Public Release of the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey

Good morning, Ladies and gentlemen. Professor McKee and I are very pleased that you are here, and delighted to have this opportunity to tell you about the work of our Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee over the past 18-plus months.

We are authorized today to release the results of an extensive series of deliberations on the state of Astronomy and Astrophysics around the start of the third millennium -- and more importantly, our Committee's considered judgment on the outlook for this scientific field in the decade just ahead. Like other Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committees before this one, we have taken very seriously the portion of our charge which asks the Survey Committee to set clear priorities for initiatives in Astronomy and Astrophysics over the next ten years. I think we have succeeded admirably in this part of the task.

It will not surprise you to hear me say that this is an extremely exciting time to be an active participant in the field of astronomy. Trying to make sense of the fundamental laws of Nature, of the way particles and waves behave under influence of the fundamental forces of Nature, and how these things combine to govern the evolution of the Universe -- these are heady topics, challenging and fascinating to study, and integrally a part of the broader scientific enterprise that has done so much to define our present society and contribute to its wealth and well-being.

On the strictly astronomical side: how did the Universe come to be the way it is? How did its constituents form? How will they evolve into the distant future? How did life arise? Has this happened in more than one place? With what developmental consequences? Conditions are ripe today -- as ripe as I can remember them being at any time during my professional life -- for very significant progress to be made on questions such as these.

I suspect that it will also not surprise you to hear me say that many, many people have brought to the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee exciting plans and persuasive-sounding arguments for why those particular plans would address particularly important questions, and would do it in an especially timely and cost-effective manner. The principal job of the Survey Committee was to sort out these various ideas and proposals, to weigh their relative importances and cost/benefit ratios, and to form consensus judgments that we believed would lead to an optimized allocation of potentially available resources. This is no easy task, I can assure you -- not least because basic science, by its very nature, is not particularly amenable to a top-down planning model, no matter how bright the planners may be, and how dedicated to their task.

Nevertheless, we have done our best; I am proud of the Committee's work and confident that our recommendations are sound, are supported by the available evidence and the present state of the astronomical art. In fact, I would go a step further and assert that our recommendations are close to those that another hypothetical committee, made up of people of similarly high distinction and ability, would have reached if presented with similar information and background.

With those words as a general introduction, let me now turn to a brief description of the process used to produce the Committee Report that is being released today. The Survey Committee consisted of 15 distinguished astronomers, or astronomer/physicists -- you often can hardly tell the difference, these days -- from a wide variety of institutions. Five were from private and four from public universities; three were from government-sponsored laboratories or observatories, and one each from a four-year liberal arts college, an independent observatory, and from industry.

Most of the Committee members other than the two co-chairs also served as Vice-Chair of a committee sub-panel. The Panels were organized to represent and consider problems in a particular sub-field of astronomy and astrophysics. We chose to organize the panels mostly around techniques -- for example, radio and submillimeter astronomy, or optical and infra-red astronomy done from the ground -- because the major instruments in the field, and therefore the projects that necessarily compete for the biggest portions of available resources, are best distinguished in this way. There were nine panels in all.

The Survey Committee and Panel Chairs met on five occasions over eleven months, from December 1998 to October 1999. During that time each of the Panels held three meetings, and I would not want to try to estimate the number of email messages that were exchanges while they were preparing their arguments, and finally their reports. Public sessions were held at meetings of the American Astronomical Society in January and June, 1999, and other smaller public "town meetings" were held in a number centers of astronomical activity, nationwide. A web page was created to post publicly notices of the progress of the Committee, and to solicit email input from anyone who wished to express a view.

The Panel reports were finished early last fall, and the Survey Committee reached consensus conclusions on priorities and recommendations at its last face-to-face meeting, in October. Drafting of the final Report started immediately thereafter, and most of the work was complete by mid-December, whereupon a very thorough internal review process was begun. By late January, after countless additional email messages and a telecon meeting or two, the report was declared ready for external review.

You may have heard about the thoroughness of the NRC review process. Everything you've heard is true. In this instance the main AASC report was reviewed by nine principal reviewers, plus a couple of extras; and each of the seven separate panel reports (which are being published together as an Appendix) was reviewed by at least people. A total of 23 reviewers, in all -- each an expert in one or more sub-fields relevant to the Survey, and each as distinguished as any member of the Survey Committee itself. Like the process of peer-reviewing of scientific literature, this process requires the development of a thick skin and considerable element of patience on the part of the authors of a work; but I can assure you that the final product is significantly improved in clarity, accuracy, and forcefulness of argument during the review process.

The full contents of the Survey Committee Report, and the Panel Reports, will be posted on the National Academy Press website. And I'm happy to say that an attractive, well-illustrated summary brochure is being prepared for publication around the end of the summer, when hard copies of the final edited Report and Appendix also become available.

Let me stop there, so as to leave plenty of time for the much more exciting comments to follow from my colleague and co-chair, Professor Christopher McKee, who will present the Survey Committee's Priorities and Recommendations.