January 21, 2013 — NOAA needs SMAST, because its own science is becoming unraveled and the guessing games about fish stocks have never been worse. We need innovators. SMAST is an innovator. Let them innovate.
One would think that this would be a time of celebration for the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology in New Bedford.
After all, it is about to see a $45 million expansion, and the new UMass chancellor, Dr. Divina Grossman, sang its praises during her job interviews. SMAST, she said, is on the verge of greatness, of world-class status.
But there's a problem brewing, and many in the fishing industry are seriously worried about it. The reality of the campus budget makes it imperative that UMass Dartmouth find new sources of income, from grants and contracts.
So the Golden Rule begins to apply: He who has the gold makes the rules. At least, that is the concern.
A month ago, UMass created a stir by demoting Dr. Brian Rothschild, a world-renowned marine scientist, from his position as co-director of the state's Marine Fishing Institute, which is a formal partnership with the state government in pursuing marine research.
By most accounts Rothschild had done a stellar job over 10 years, publishing hundreds of articles. And during that time, SMAST has enjoyed the trust of the fishing industry, as was pointed out earlier this month in an op-ed article by fisheries attorney Harvey Mickelson.
Rothschild, you see, is a frequent critic of NOAA's scienitfic methods. And while NOAA and environmental groups have given SMAST some grants, there is a fear that too close a relationship with NOAA will stifle criticism and undermine SMAST's dogged independence.
"The bottom line is money," Mickelson told me. "If they scratch the back of NOAA and get rid of Rothschild, they will have access to money for fisheries education."
The problem is particularly acute, Mickelson said, because Congress has eliminated the budget earmarks that could direct money to SMAST researchers without being put through the NOAA bureaucracy. Today NOAA has a stronger hand, and it is perhaps unwise from the fundraising viewpoint to rub NOAA the wrong way.
"NOAA really controls the money," said Mickelson. "Play ball with us, get rid of Rothschild and not have him come up with things that conflict with NASA."
Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times