Observers of the Smithsonian Institution's beloved but imperiled showplace, the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), believe it is about to get another chance at excellence when Cristián Samper becomes its newest director in April.

Scientists and others who have mourned the steady erosion of the Smithsonian and the NMNH seem confident that the Colombian scientist can turn the place around. Samper is young (37), experienced (as deputy director for the past two years at the Smithsonian's well-regarded Tropical Research Institute in Panama), and a strong international scientist.

A plant ecologist by training, he has spent two decades studying forest dynamics in long-term plots. The research closest to Samper's own heart involves the ecology of Andean cloud forests. But he seems unfazed about facing the poison darts of the Washington policy jungle and taking over an organization that has been described as dysfunctional, neglectful of its scientific side, and sliding into "a state of mediocrity from which it will be hard to recover."

Samper will run the exhibits that form the Museum's public face, but he also will be protector and conservator of 124 million biological, geological, archaeological and ethnological specimens. The neglect of those collections got so bad in recent years that the regents of the 156-year-old independent trust appointed a Science Commission to investigate. The announcement of Samper's appointment came on Jan. 29, not long after the Commission report was released.

The Commission's assessment was withering. It found the NMNH in the worst shape of all the Smithsonian's units, due to "long-term instability in the office of the director." There was eroding morale and productivity "and a bunker mentality of entitlement in the face of shrinking budgets," the report stated.

What was needed, said the panelists, is a director who is a respected scientist with an international reputation; a demonstrated ability to lead; and great communication skills.

That's exactly what they got, according to Peter Raven, internationally-known biodiversity scholar and advocate, head of the Missouri Botanical Garden and a member of the Science Commission. Raven told The Scientist that he has known Samper for many years, and has "always been impressed with his ability, his creativity, his outstanding personality, and his communication skills." Raven also called Samper a "highly organized person," a "natural leader" and a "really splendid appointment." The new director's qualities, said Raven, should help him "raise funds and project favorable administrative arrangements for the staff of the Museum."

Other knowledgeable scientists are equally enthusiastic. Gary Hartshorn, president of the Organization for Tropical Studies at Duke University, called Samper's selection "bold and brilliant," an "inspired choice to provide the leadership the NMNH so desperately needs."

Diana H. Wall, head of the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University, took time out from her work in Antarctica to praise Samper's selection by e-mail: "Even given the Smithsonian's problems," she wrote, "I believe he can have a huge impact."

Samper has an enormous task. He thinks the global decline in biological diversity is largely caused by "the gap that still exists between scientists and decision-makers." Scientists don't provide the information that policy makers need, provide it at the right time, or use the right language. Decision-makers "are not necessarily framing questions to scientists or providing the support that is needed to carry out research."

Samper has experience in bridging the gap, most of it gained in Colombia. "I have no doubt that the work that we did [there] did influence the policy at the highest level, all the way up to the president of Colombia," he told The Scientist. Colombia, for all its current troubles, is enormously wealthy in its biodiversity. Partly because of that richness and fears of its loss, the entire environmental sector in Colombia was restructured. The organization Samper founded in 1993, the Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute, was placed in charge of biodiversity research, a lead institution in a joint venture with governmental agencies.

Bridging the gap at the Museum, said Samper, is essential. "It's very important to show decision makers how the science at the Smithsonian can contribute to solving the fundamental issues that interest society." Global climate change is one example—the museum's paleontology work can provide valuable information about the effects of past climate shifts on biodiversity.

"I do think it's very important to focus on the science," Samper added, "because that's what gives you credibility. And of course, it drives the decision-makers crazy when you tell them, 'Well, this is the information we have, this is the gap, and this is the probability level of confidence.' And they say, 'What does that mean?'"

The Science Commission's recommendations gave top priority to lack of money. Institution Secretary Lawrence Small was appointed in January 2000 and created a firestorm when he revealed a willingness to sell the museum's good name. Exhibit halls and even the Museum itself were renamed for corporate sponsors. Then Small announced plans to cut scientific programs. The corporate shenanigans have tapered off, but the money mess is going to confront Cristián Samper the moment he walks into his new office in early April.

"I've got several ideas about it," he said. "One is, yes, the museum needs more money." Invested funds could be reallocated; Samper will seek federal increases for the collections and exhibits, as well as nonvolatile opportunities for private funding and collaborative agreements with scientific institutions around the world.

Samper (pronounced "sam-PAIR") was born in Costa Rica of an American mother and Colombian father. (His formal Spanish name is Cristián Samper Kutschbach). He also has a dual identity as a Smithsonian insider, yet one who has been relatively isolated from Washington's political-bureaucratic intrigues. Does this make him an ideal candidate to direct a national treasure that has fallen on hard times?

"Of course, I'm biased," he said. "But I would say in some ways I have the best of both worlds. By having been here for a couple of years . . . it does give me enough inside information about where the institution is going. Having someone completely new come from outside would be a steep learning curve. . . So I see it as an advantage.

"At the same time, not being from inside the institution allows me to look at it from the outside and not be engaged with the internal politics of whatever's going on there. So in some ways it's the best of both worlds. And I certainly intend to make the best of it."