Scientists at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington have come up their own plan for reorganizing research operations at the Smithsonian Institution, of which the museum is part.

Only natural: researchers hope to retain links between science and exhibitions at the museum. Credit: LEE SNIDER/CORBIS

The 13-page plan would divide science at the Smithsonian into three institutes of roughly equal size, dealing with astrophysics, natural sciences and environmental sciences. It would retain close ties between the administration of research and exhibits — ties the scientists have accused the Smithsonian's management of trying to break.

The 155-year-old institution has been in turmoil for most of this year as its secretary, Larry Small, clashed with its scientists over his plans to restructure research at the world's largest museum complex.

In May, the dispute led the Smithsonian's Board of Regents to appoint a senior scientific advisory panel, chaired by Jeremy Sabloff of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Philadelphia (see Nature 411, 624; 2001).

The scientists hope to influence Sabloff's panel when it meets for the first time next month. They propose setting up two Smithsonian-wide bodies: a directorate, comprising the directors of the three proposed institutes, to run research, and a council, including the heads of most research-performing branches, to advise on scientific objectives.

The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Harvard would make up most of the astrophysics directorate, and the NMNH would dominate the natural sciences. The environmental-sciences directorate would combine several smaller centres.

Some scientists say the plan protects its authors' interests by giving the NMNH its own directorate. The authors respond that three directorates of about 200 scientists each would allow for efficient administration and benefit all researchers. The authors suggest appointing associate directors for research and for exhibitions at the major Smithsonian museums.

Brian Huber, an NMNH palaeobiologist and one of the authors, says that circulated drafts of the plan were well received.

In response to criticism that their proposal does not go far enough, the authors say that: "Dismantling and reshuffling existing units is not necessarily a prescription for what ails Smithsonian science." They add that radical structural change could lead to years of painful upheaval.

David Umansky, the Smithsonian's director of communications, declined to comment. Sabloff says the proposal has been circulated to the panel members. "I welcome ideas and input from everyone," he says, adding that he would prefer to keep science and exhibits as integrated as possible.