Washington

A much-criticized plan for guiding US research into climate change has been issued in its final form by the Bush administration. Many climate scientists say that it has been improved, but that a fundamental flaw remains — the plan lacks the budget and mechanisms to ensure that its results influence policy-making.

The strategy, unveiled on 24 July, is designed to coordinate research in important aspects of climate, such as sources and sinks in the carbon cycle and human influence on climate. Since the draft form was issued last November, it has been disparaged by many scientists, who say it ignores studies showing that climate change could damage the US economy and environment (see Nature 420, 110; 200210.1038/420110a) and lacks a consistent framework to guide research.

Many changes have been made, and the report is now almost twice its original length, says James Mahoney, deputy administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Washington DC, who coordinated the report. Additions include five goals designed to guide research, including a focus on ecosystem response to climate change and past climate variability. The plan also calls for 20 reports over the next four years to provide guidance for politicians. “This is an intellectually sound document,” says Mahoney.

Critics agree that the plan is more cohesive, but fear that the report will have little influence on politicians. “It's not just a question of science any more,” says James White, who chairs the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado in Boulder. White says that the community needs to be talking to policy-makers about lessening climate change, not just issuing white papers.

Ultimately, budgets are the most pressing issue, adds Benjamin Preston, a senior scientist at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia. US funding for climate science is currently stagnating at about $1.7 billion annually. Without fresh funds, much of the research in the plan will be impossible, he says.