retained the tradition of a community of independent scholars characterized by autonomy, individuality, and a diversity of research interests. Some faculty research was commercially or industrially oriented, particularly in the engineering schools and in chemistry departments. Some faculty followed government research interests in agriculture. Still others pursued independent research interests with small amounts of philanthropic support.
In response to the vital contributions of science and technology to U.S. victories in World War II, Bush (1945) and Steelman (1947) called for increased government support of research. The Bush report inspired a postwar relationship between government and the scientific community that sought to extend the successes of both government-organized projects such as the Manhattan Project and university-based research such as that performed at the Radiation Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Both models of scientific work were eventually implemented, and the Bush report provided the blueprint for continued federal support of academic science through a decentralized process driven by investigator-initiated research proposals, eventually institutionalized with the establishment of the National Science Foundation in 1950.
The post-World War II years were thus the formative period for a more intimate relationship between the U.S. government and the scientific research community. The development of the contemporary system of federal support for university-based basic research and the education of new researchers provided the platform for the current preeminence of U.S. research (GUIRR, 1989). This system grew rapidly through the late 1960s (Brooks, 1989).
In the 1970s economic stagnation and concern about the cost of research and the social impact of science-based technologies led to a reexamination of the basic rationale governing federal investments in scientific research (GUIRR, 1989; Brooks, 1989). This reexamination led in turn to increased oversight and involvement of public officials with both science and technology. New regulatory requirements and new standards of accountability were imposed (OTA, 1986a).
In the 1980s renewed growth in federal funding for scientific research stimulated changes in the academic research environment. Support increased for research and development centers, large projects, and single-disease or single-technology programs, often called directed or mission-oriented research. But the accompanying increases in the size of academic administrative staffs and the amount of research overhead costs created concerns among sponsors and faculty.1 In the face of increasing federal budget deficits in the late 1980s and decreasing economic and educational performance by the nation,