GAO Questions Quake Center Location

A Government Accounting Office study released Thursday questioned the methods the National Science Foundation used in deciding last fall to locate an earthquake research center in New York instead of California, prompting Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) to call on the agency to suspend its decision.

The GAO report said no evidence could be found that the State University of New York at Buffalo deserved the nod over the University of California, Berkeley, in getting a $25-million, five-year grant to establish the center.

Rather, it said, the NSF seemed prematurely swayed by a pledge by the Buffalo college to provide matching money for the first year’s share of the grant. The NSF staff did not notify Berkeley that such a guarantee was expected, and only belatedly agreed to visit the California site after the matching offer was finally made, the report said.

Process ‘Poorly Managed’

The foundation “poorly managed” the selection process, creating at least the appearance of partiality, said the GAO, which oversees how agencies and programs spend federal money.

Wilson, who along with Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) requested the study, said he will press NSF officials to reopen the selection process for the earthquake center when the foundation comes before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation this month to receive its periodic authorization to dispense federal funds.

“If we are going to keep pork out of science, it should be not only congressional pork but also academic,” said Wilson, who serves on the committee.

Cranston criticized the foundation for “shoddy management,” but did not support reopening the competition. He said doing so would undercut substantial work done already by the New York school and could make earthquake research a “political battleground.” In the next five years, the NSF is scheduled to award $3.6 billion in grants for scientific research.

Stands by Decision

The foundation, in a statement, said it stood by its choice of the New York site and hinted at no inclination to revoke it.

“The award was based on the scientific and technical merits of the competing proposals, consistent with NSF policy and practice,” the statement said.

The foundation said it appreciated the study’s recommendations “intended to strengthen the procedures and paper work that supported the award. These recommendations appear to be consistent with the conclusions of our own internal review.”

To Accelerate Research

The GAO addressed only the methods of the NSF’s screening procedures on the project and did not conclude that one university or the other should have received the grant, which is designed to accelerate research on better ways of predicting earthquakes and of making buildings more resistant to earthquake damage.

Tom Tobin, executive director of the California Seismic Safety Commission, said the organization will meet next week to decide whether it should push to have the selection process reopened.

On the other hand, officials at the State University of New York at Buffalo said they consider the issue closed. In a statement, they said they felt “vindicated” because the report did not conclude the NSF panel made the wrong decision or that the evaluation panel was technically unable to make the choice.