| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
PART TWO
Achieving the Vision
OCR for page 8
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 9
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
INTRODUCTION
Two processes need to begin simultaneously. First, universities and research sponsors need to take immediate, concrete steps to "put their houses in order." Second, all those with a stake in academic research—including the political, corporate, and public interest sectors—should begin to think strategically about options for the future of the research enterprise.
Achieving such an optimistic and challenging vision for the future will require choosing among a range of options, each of which will have profound implications for the research enterprise in the United States. All those with a stake in the research enterprise—investigators, university administrators, funding agencies and the larger public—need to understand the implications of these difficult choices. Whatever decisions are made will determine the capacity and character of the U.S. research enterprise of the next century.
In the view of the working group, two processes need to begin simultaneously. First, universities and research sponsors need to take immediate, concrete steps to "put their houses in order." The working group believes that decisionmakers at the highest levels need to set overall national research priorities with input from the university and research communities. Universities and funding agencies need to clarify their respective responsibilities for funding university-based research and their need to update their organizational and management strategies. Universities, funding agencies, and professional societies need to adapt to shifting demographics and the changing value systems of many young investigators. Universities need to improve the quality of science and engineering education, especially at the undergraduate level.
Second, all those with a stake in academic research—including the political, corporate, and public interest sectors—should begin to think strategically about options for the future of the research enterprise. To start this process, the working group describes a heuristic framework for considering future options. Central to this framework is a better understanding of the large-scale forces that affect the enterprise: the pace and nature of research, the economy, politics and international events. Based on a consideration of possible interactions of these factors, the working group sets forth several "scenarios" depicting the future size and structure of the enterprise. The working group then identifies key policies or programs, specific to each scenario, that would be required to maintain the quality and productivity of the enterprise. The working group believes that this heuristic framework brings new ideas to the attention of the research community. This is in keeping with the working group's charge to concentrate on issues affecting the enterprise over the long term.
OCR for page 10
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
NEAR-TERM DECISIONS
In an earlier discussion paper,1 the working group identified several trends that it believes to be symptomatic of underlying long-term changes within the enterprise. While the enterprise is not now in a crisis, the working group believes that these changes require urgent attention by all participants in the enterprise—investigators, university administrators, research sponsors.
The near-term decisions outlined below will not come easily. Without them, however, harmful tensions in the enterprise will persist and, equally important, the public support needed to achieve the optimistic vision set out in this paper will not be forthcoming.
SETTING PRIORITIES
It will be necessary in the coming decades to set national priorities for the support and conduct of science and engineering research. If priorities are not established, there will be increasing confusion about and less than optimal investments in frontier research and in research infrastructure of vital importance to the nation.
It will be necessary in the coming decades to set national priorities for the support and conduct of science and engineering research. If priorities are not established, there will be increasing confusion about and less than optimal investments in frontier research and in research infrastructure of vital importance to the nation.
Growth In The Number Of High-Quality Research Opportunities Is Outpacing Increases In Research Funding. The 1950s and 1960s saw an enormous expansion of both the number of university research personnel and the financial resources for the support of university-based research. Following a general steady-state in funding and personnel during the 1970s, expansion and diversification of university-based research resumed during the past decade. All evidence points to a continuation of the trends of the last 10 years: increased numbers of institutions and people involved in research; greater participation of industry, states, and universities in the support of science and engineering; and enhanced university research capacity designed to boost local, regional, and national economic development.
The growth of the past decade has brought many benefits. The enlarged base of support for research has resulted in major scientific and technological accomplishments, and it has enhanced the nation's research and educational capacity. Serious questions are being raised, however, about the nation's continued willingness to support a growing research enterprise. The enterprise itself is experiencing a number of detrimental tensions that threaten its quality, integrity, and ability to respond to new opportunities and challenges.
At the federal level, demand for financial support for research activities is outpacing the recent increases in research funding by the federal agencies. As a consequence, although the absolute number of federally supported
OCR for page 11
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
researchers is higher now than at any point in history, competition for research funding is increasing—for both established and younger investigators. This situation is exacerbated by the rapidly increasing costs of doing research—paying the salaries of scientists and engineers, building and maintaining new research facilities, and purchasing new research instruments— and by the simultaneous emergence of several large-scale research projects within federal agency budgets. As a result, tension is growing among investigators, their parent institutions and the agencies that fund them. The high level of frustration expressed by many scientists is but one highly visible sign of the stress these tensions are creating. 2
The trends of the last 10 years have also put the federally supported peer-review system, used to allocate funds among competing research proposals, under growing strain. Many investigators are having to spend increasing amounts of time as reviewers, leaving less time for their own research. There is also growing concern that greater numbers of conventional proposals are being submitted because investigators fear that innovative, but unorthodox, research projects will not be funded.
Another source of tension is the balance between funding greater numbers of science projects and rebuilding the research infrastructure. Many research facilities are in need of repair, renovation, or replacement. Many laboratories lack state-of-the-art scientific equipment. Fiscal belt-tightening, if continued at the state and federal levels, will undoubtedly compound this problem.
Government Leaders Must Set Broad National Priorities For Research In Consultation With The Individual Scientific And Engineering Disciplines, The Larger Scientific Community, Academic Institutions, And Industry. 3 Such a broad-based process for setting priorities needs to address not only the relative importance of various research projects and programs, but also the funding needs for facilities, instrumentation, education, and training.
Priority-setting at the level of the individual research proposal has worked quite successfully. The research community relies primarily on two criteria to allocate funding: research excellence and impact on the knowledge base, or the potential of a research proposal to expand the horizons of human understanding. The working group strongly believes these two criteria must continue to be the primary basis for making funding decisions in research. Originality, or unique, non-traditional approaches to addressing research questions, will also have to be explicitly considered. This approach will be necessary to address concerns that more "conventional" research proposals are being submitted as a response to increased competition for funding.
Other funding criteria will also play a role in funding decisions. These are: relevance, or having eventual application to human needs; economic promise, or the potential for accelerating growth in the gross national product (GNP); and equity, or the degree to which funding agencies should consider the
OCR for page 12
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
geographic location, race, and sex of grant applicants. The challenge for research institutions and agencies that fund research will be to decide on the appropriate mix of these criteria, and to make them explicit. Different criteria will be called for, depending on the goals of those supporting the research.
Processes for setting national priorities across research fields or within the enterprise as a whole work less effectively. Within the federal government, there is no coherent, over-arching strategy for research. This lack of coordination at the highest levels of decisionmaking is a serious problem.
Within research fields, with a few notable exceptions, individual scientific and engineering disciplines are only now attempting to agree on research priorities and to set forth a strategic vision. To be of use to decision-makers who allocate federal research dollars, such priority-setting will need to be adopted more broadly and updated on a regular basis.
Processes for setting national priorities across research fields or within the enterprise as a whole work less effectively. Within the federal government, there is no coherent, over-arching strategy for research. This lack of coordination at the highest levels of decisionmaking is a serious problem. 4,5 Although research priority-setting occurs de facto during the federal budget process, with input from the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Congress, and the federal agencies that fund research, priority-setting across agencies occurs only rarely.
This lack of coordination goes beyond the federal level. The nation's research community has conducted little debate about priorities, and there has been resistance to priority-setting efforts. State government and federal agency officials have only recently begun an informal dialogue about those issues. Few academic institutions have engaged in any kind of long-term strategic planning necessary to set priorities for conducting and supporting research.
Because priority-setting entails important trade-offs, the long-term implications of such decisions must be taken into consideration. The need for investing in the research infrastructure, for example, will have to be weighed against funding a larger number of individual research grants. The importance of investing in large, expensive "mega-projects" will need to be balanced against the desirability of funding a number of smaller research projects.
CLARIFYING FUNDING RESPONSIBILITIES
Ensuring that the essential needs of the enterprise are met within this changing environment requires more explicit focus on the division of federal, state, and university responsibilities in funding academic research.
The financial resource base for academic research is becoming increasingly complex. Through their support for research infrastructure and the indirect costs of research, non-federal sectors now play a much more significant role in setting the research agenda in the United States than they have in the past three decades. Ensuring that the essential needs of the enterprise are met within this changing environment requires more explicit focus on the division of federal, state, and university responsibilities in funding academic research.
OCR for page 13
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
Over The Past Two Decades, While Federal Investments In Academic Research Have Increased, Non-Federal Funding Has Grown Even Faster. As a consequence, the percentage of total non-federal academic research funds rose from 31 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1990, its highest point since the 1950s. 6 (See Figure 1, page 14.) The rise of non-federal investments in research is most pronounced in public universities. The non-federal share of research funds for public universities rose to 48 percent in 1990, compared with a 29 percent federal share for private universities. (See Figure 2, page 15, and Figure 3, page 16.)
During the same 20-year period, the estimated share of university-generated funds devoted to research grew from 11 percent to 19 percent. The most significant trend in university funding during this time was the willingness of public universities—especially institutions aspiring to develop a stronger research base—to utilize their own resources to cover part of the indirect costs of externally sponsored research.
Although the overall share of academic research funds contributed by state governments held steady at 8 percent, several states greatly increased their spending for academic research. Industry also took a larger role, more than doubling its share of investment in academic research, from 2.8 percent of the total in 1970 to an estimated 7 percent in 1990.
Non-federal sectors now pay about 41 percent of the total for academic research equipment. (See Figure 4, page 17.) For academic science and engineering facilities, the non-federal share of direct funding has risen to 90 percent. (See Figure 5, page 18.)
Policymakers Need To Rethink The Current Division Of Federal-State And Federal-University Responsibilities For Higher Education In General And Research In Particular. This will require more effective ongoing communication, interaction, and coordination among research sponsors and academic institutions. 7
All sponsors of academic research are currently facing financial constraints. Federal appropriations are constrained by large budget deficits and public resistance to raising taxes. State governments—many of which are confronting their own budget problems—are closely evaluating their priorities, including the support of academic research. Foreign governments and foreign-based industries are potentially important sources of funding for U.S. academic research; however, as global economic competition intensifies, foreign investments could be constrained by government policies.
During the next decade, the ability of most universities to increase their own resources in support of research will be limited. It is unlikely that more funds could come from undergraduate student tuition or state monies appropriated for the educational mission. This is because most universities are facing steady student enrollments and flat or reduced state appropriations, and at both private and public universities, public pressure has slowed the pace of tuition increases. More universities are competing with each other
OCR for page 14
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 1
Academic R&D Expenditures by Source
Note: Data series within the figures are not overlapped; top line represents total. Financial data are expressed in 1988 constant dollars to reflect real long-term growth trends
Definition of Terms: Academic R&D expenditures include current-fund expenditures within higher education institutions for all research and development activities that are separately budgeted and accounted for. This includes both sponsored research activities (sponsored by federal and non-federal agencies and organizations) and university research separately budgeted under an Internal application of institutional funds; but excludes training. public service, demonstration projects, departmental research not separately budgeted, and FFRDCs. Federal funds include grants and contracts for academic R&D (including direct and reimbursed indirect costs) by agencies of the federal government. State/ Local funds include funds for academic R&D from state, county, municipal, or other local governments and their agencies, including funds for R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations. Industry funds includes all grants and contracts for academic R&D from profit-making organizations, whether engaged in production, distribution, research, service, or other activities Own Funds include institutional funds for separately budgeted research and development, cost-sharing, and under-recovery of indirect costs; they are derived from (1) general purpose state or local government appropriations. (2) general purpose grants from industry, foundations, and other outside sources, (3) tuition and fees, and (4) endowment income. Other sources include grants for academic R&D from non-profit foundations and voluntary health agencies, as well as individual gifts that are restricted by the donor to research.
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis. Database: CASPAR. Some of the data within this database are estimates, incorporated where there are discontinuities within data series or gaps m data collection. Primary data source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Scientific and Engineering Expenditures at Universities and Colleges.
OCR for page 15
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 2
Public Doctoral Institution R &D Expenditures by Source of Funds
Note: Data series within the figures are not overlapped; top line represents total. Financial data are expressed m 1988 constant dollars to reflect real long-term growth trends.
Definition of Terms: Public doctoral institutions are institutions thathave granted an average of 10 or more Ph.D. degrees per year m the natural sciences or engineering over the past two decades, and are under the control of—or affiliated with—federal, state, local, state and local, or state-related agencies; they include 116 institutions. R&D Expenditures include current-fund expenditures within doctoral institutions for all research and development activities that are separately budgeted and accounted for; excluding departmental research not separately budgeted and FFRDCs. Federal funds include grants and contracts for R&D (including direct and reimbursed indirect costs) by agencies of the federal government, excluding funds for FFRDCs. State/Local funds include funds for R&D from state, county, municipal, or other local governments and their agencies, including funds for R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations. Industry funds include all grants and contracts for R&D from profit-making organizations, whether engaged m production, distribution, research, service, or other activities. Own Funds include institutional funds for separately budgeted research and development, cost-sharing, and under-recovery of indirect costs. They are derived from (1) general purpose state or local government appropriations, (2) general purpose grants from industry, foundations, or other outside sources, (3) tuitionand fees, and (4) endowment income Other sources include grants for R&D from non-profit foundations and voluntary health agencies, as well as individual gifts that are restricted by the donor to research.
Source. National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis. Database: CASPAR. Some of the data within this database are estimates, incorporated where there are discontinuities within data series or gaps in data collection. Primary data source: NationalScience Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Scientific and EngineeringExpenditures at Universities and Colleges.
OCR for page 16
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 3
Private Doctoral Institution R & D Expenditures by, Source of Funds
Note: Data series within the figures are not overlapped; top line represents total. Financial data are expressed in 1988 constant dollars to reflect real long-term growth trends.
Definition of Terms: Private doctoral institutions are institutions that have granted an average of 10 or more Ph D degrees per year in the natural sciences or engineering over the past two decades, and are under the control of—or affiliated with—non-profit, independent organizations with or without religious affiliation; they include 69 institutions. R&D expenditures include current-fund expenditures within doctoral institutions for all research and development activities that are separately budgeted and accounted for; excluding departmental research not separately budgeted and FFRDCs. Federal funds include grants and contracts for R&D (including direct and reimbursed indirect costs) by agencies of the federal government, excluding funds for FFRDCs. State/Local funds include funds for R&D from state, county, municipal, or other local governments and their agencies, including funds for R&D at agricultural and other experiment stations Industry funds include all grants and contracts for R&D from profit-making organizations, whether engaged in production, distribution, research, service, or other activities. Own Funds include institutional funds for separately budgeted research and development, cost-sharing, and under-recovery of indirect costs. They are derived from (1) general purpose state or local government appropriations, (2) general purpose grants from industry, foundations, or other outside sources, (3) tuition and fees, and (4) endowment income. Other sources include grants forR&D from non-profit foundations and voluntary health agencies, as well as individual gifts that are restricted by the donor to research.
Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis. Database: CASPAR. Some of the data within this database are estimates, incorporated where there are discontinuities within data series or gaps in data collection Primary data source National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Scientific and EngineeringExpenditures at Universities and Colleges.
OCR for page 17
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 4
Expenditures for Academic Research Equipment by Source of Funds
Note: Data series within the figures are not overlapped, top line represents total. Financial data are expressed m 1988 constant dollars to reflect real long-term growth trends Definition of Terms: Research equipment expenditures include (1) reported expenditures of separately budgeted current-funds for the purchase of research equipment, and (2) estimated capital expenditures for fixed or built-in research equipment and furniture. Federal funds include expenditures for academic research equipment with monies from grants and contracts for academic R&D (including direct and reimbursed redirect costs) by agencies of the federal government; excludes expenditures for FFRDC facilities Other sources include state and local governments, the institution themselves, industry, and other non-profit organizations.
Source. National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis Database CASPAR. Some of the data within this database are estimates, incorporated where there are discontinuities within data series or gaps in data collection. Primary data source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Scientific and Engineering Expenditures at Universities and Colleges
and with other local and national organizations for the same sources of private philanthropy.
In response to these funding pressures, ''leveraging" arrangements and "cost-sharing" requirements have become common components of the research-support system. To the extent that leveraging increases the overall level of funds for research, it is beneficial for the entire academic research enterprise. If academic institutions are pressured to cost-share—both for direct project costs and through contributions to indirect costs—and by doing so must reallocate resources from instructional programs to research, the research enterprise is imperiled in the long-run.
OCR for page 40
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 7
Scenario Policy Requirements
structure of the enterprise is more concentrated or more diversified. (See Figure 8, page 41.)
The United States has two primary sources for enlarging the pool of available research expertise. The first and most desirable is the nation's own citizenry. Successful efforts would have to be made to attract larger numbers of students, including women and minorities, into post-secondary science and engineering education, and to promote their subsequent participation in the research enterprise.
At the graduate level, significantly increased financial support would be needed in the form of stipends, fellowships, and assistantships. At the pre-college level, substantial improvements in science and mathematics programs would be required. This would necessitate dramatic improvements in student attitudes toward science and mathematics. For many, it also would
OCR for page 41
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 8
Human Resource Requirements
demand a fundamental recognition of the value of long-term investment in science and education.
The second source of talent would be the potentially large number of foreign-trained scientists and engineers desiring to work in American research institutions. However, reliance on this source is risky. As described earlier, other countries, including many developing nations, are creating their own research systems that will compete directly with the United States for this pool of talent. As other nations increase their dependence on technology and science and face shortages of skilled workers, the competition for human skills is likely to increase.
Financial Resources
Should research costs per investigator continue to rise at a rate higher than general inflation in the economy, maintaining a steady-state in the size of the enterprise will require annual real increases in financial support for research projects, facilities, and equipment, as well as for graduate education. If such investments are not forthcoming, the enterprise would likely decline in both quality and capacity.
With rapidly increasing costs, expanding the number of researchers would require substantial real annual increases in funding for university-based research. In an expanding enterprise composed of more large-scale research universities, even greater funding growth would be required to support added duplication of programs across the enterprise. (See Figure 9, page 42.)
OCR for page 42
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 9
Funding Requirements
The plausibility of any funding level must be considered within the larger context of national economic growth and political willingness to increase public investments in research. In addition, political decisions to augment university-based research, relative to other research sectors, will also be a factor. If federal laboratories were to assume increased responsibility for costly research facilities and expand access to these facilities by university researchers, a growing academic research enterprise would be more possible. On the other hand, should federal laboratories more actively compete with academic institutions for basic research funding, growth in the academic sector may be more difficult.
Locus Of Decisionmaking
Decisions to add or terminate academic research programs, as well as to allocate funds for research infrastructure, currently are made at different levels. The locus of decisionmaking will depend on the changing size and structure of the enterprise. (See Figure 10, page 43.)
If the enterprise were to become more concentrated within large-scale research universities, decisionmaking might best take place at the institutional and departmental levels rather than the national level, because of the breadth of coverage within each university.
If the enterprise were to become more diversified, there would be greater need for national-level decisionmaking to coordinate widely dispersed activities. If the enterprise were simultaneously shrinking in size, new na-
OCR for page 43
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 10
Shift Toward National Decisionmaking
tional decisionmaking mechanisms would be absolutely required to ensure that no important gaps occur in the nation's research portfolio.
In an enterprise comprised of more research institutions with limited research portfolios, there also would be greater need for decisionmaking at the level of the central administration of each institution. If these universities were to reduce the number of their research fields, more centralized decisionmaking would become a necessity during the transition.
Communications Infrastructure
The conduct of research at all levels is becoming increasingly dependent on telecommunications technologies. Contemporary research problems are being addressed by larger and more complex teams of investigators around the world. In many instances, sophisticated and more expensive research equipment is needed. Telecommunications networks allow widely dispersed research personnel to share data, to collaborate effectively, and to use one-of-a-kind research instrumentation.
If the enterprise were to become more diversified across a broader array of institutions, an effective national telecommunications infrastructure would be absolutely essential. A key component of the infrastructure would be personal computers used as "information ports" to receive and send electronic and voice mail, complex documents, and real-time video images; to access specialized databases and digital libraries; and to perform experiments
OCR for page 44
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 11
Requirements for Communication Technologies
using advanced supercomputers, automated research instruments and other modern facilities in remote locations. (See Figure 11, page 44.)
Openness Of The Global Research System
Whatever the size of the U.S. academic enterprise, access to foreign sources of new knowledge and technology will be essential. This will be especially critical as the research systems of other nations grow and become more effective.
If the U.S. enterprise were to shrink over the next several decades, access to foreign research would become absolutely essential for maintaining the overall quality and usefulness of academic research in this country. (See Figure 12, page 45.) In this situation, the United States would have to have full access to the results of basic research conducted by other countries. Unlike the requirements for funding, human resources, decisionmaking, and the use of telecommunications technology, however, the openness of the global research system depends upon decisions made within many nations.
Evaluating Specific Policy Proposals
Policymakers must carefully consider the consistency and efficacy of policy proposals affecting human and financial resources, locus of decision-making, communication infrastructure, and openness of the global research system. The proposals must be evaluated in terms of their explicit and im-
OCR for page 45
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FIGURE 12
Required Access to Foreign Research
plicit objectives, assumptions about the size and structure of the overall enterprise, plausibility of complementary policy requirements, and implications for near-term decisionmaking. (See box on page 46.) Inconsistent policies, programs, and resource commitments will lead to chaotic conditions and will have a potentially disastrous effect on the quality of academic research in this country.
OCR for page 46
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
A FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING POLICY PROPOSALS
The evaluation of long-term research policy proposals would be improved by addressing the following questions about the proposals:
What are the explicit and implicit objectives? [e.g., improving the capacity, quality, productivity, diversity, or social usefulness of academic research.]
What are the assumptions regarding the overall enterprise?
The direction of the enterprise? Implications for achieving policy objective?
size of enterprise: growth, steady-state, or downsizing
structure of the enterprise: more concentrated, current configuration, or more diversified
What external conditions are required to achieve that direction? Are they plausible?
trends in the pace and nature of research
economic realities
political interests
the international context
What are the concomitant policy requirements? Are they plausible?
human resources
financial resources
locus of decisionmaking
communications infrastructure
openness of global research system
What are the implications for near-term decisionmaking?
setting priorities
intersectoral funding responsibilities
institutional organization and management
adapting to societal change
institutional educational mission
OCR for page 47
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
FATEFUL CHOICES
The research enterprise of the future will be unlike the one of today. Two visions of the future stand in stark contrast: a more hopeful vision in which the research enterprise sustains leadership within the emerging global research system, provides opportunities for young talent within a diverse population, takes best advantage of frontier technology, and contributes to the vitality and well-being of this country; and a less-hopeful one, in which there is unproductive competition within the research community, an inability to pursue research opportunities of critical importance to the United States, and a gradual decline in international preeminence.
Achieving the more positive vision will require making difficult choices with potentially fateful consequences for the research enterprise.
NEAR-TERM DECISIONS
Unless the U.S. research community adequately responds to changes now occurring within the enterprise, harmful tensions will persist and public support will erode.
Unless the U.S. research community adequately responds to changes now occurring within the enterprise, harmful tensions will persist and public support will erode.
Priority-Setting. Without clearer priority-setting, there will be increasing confusion about and less than optimal investments in frontier research and in the research infrastructure of vital importance to the nation.
Funding Responsibilities. Without a clearer division of funding responsibilities, the essential needs of the enterprise—people, equipment, infrastructure—will not be met.
Organization and Management. Without innovative organizational and managerial adaptation, research sponsors and universities will be less responsive to emerging research challenges and opportunities.
Societal Change. Without successful adaptation to social change, the research environment will be less responsive to the aspirations of succeeding generations of investigators.
Education. Without revitalized educational programs, universities will fail to nurture technically literate students and future generations of scientists and engineers, and, as a result, will gradually lose public support.
STRATEGIC OPTIONS
Strategic decisions that will determine the future size and structure of the enterprise will be made in this country, either deliberately or inadvertent-
OCR for page 48
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
ly. These choices will influence the capacity and structure of research in the United States for decades to come.
It is crucial that these choices be made comprehensively and explicitly. Inaction would be the worst possible choice.
Future Size of the Academic Research Enterprise. The choice ahead is whether to increase, sustain, or decrease the national research capacity. The first option is to facilitate greater national capacity for addressing new scientific and technological opportunities. The second option is to reallocate resources and re-deploy personnel as the major modes of addressing new research opportunities and for meeting social needs. The third option is to curtail many ongoing research areas in favor of selected opportunities of paramount national importance and to rely on increased access to the science and technology of other nations.
Future Structure of the Academic Research Enterprise. The choice ahead is whether to concentrate research programs within large-scale research universities, retain the current configuration, or diversify the enterprise across more narrowly focused research institutions. The first option is to enhance "world class" U.S. universities with broad research portfolios. The second option is to maintain the current mix of policies which support both large-scale and aspiring research institutions. The third option is to encourage universities to concentrate their resources within selected areas of research strength and to distribute national research capacity across a wider array of institutions and geographic regions.
These choices are interdependent and will be affected by the complex interplay of large-scale societal forces and specific policy requirements. Inconsistent or contradictory policies will have a decidedly harmful effect on the quality and productivity of U.S. academic research. Thus it is crucial that these choices be made comprehensively and explicitly. Inaction would be the worst possible choice.
Notes
1. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, Science and Technology in the Academic Enterprise: Status, Trends and Issues, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, October 1989.
2. For a review of issues and data regarding the costs of research and proposal success rates, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Understanding Research Expenditures," in Federally, Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, (OTA-SET-490), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1991, pp. 171-201.
3. "Science: The End of the Frontier?" American Association for the Advancement of Science, January 1991.
4. Decisionmaking processes regarding priority-setting will need to be developed by the parties involved. For further discussion, see Part III, "Charting a New Course," pgs. 53-58.
OCR for page 49
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
5. For an example of such priority-setting, see National Research Council, The Decade of Discovery in Astronomy and Radiophysics, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.
6. For recommendations for national priorities within the biomedical research enterprise, see Institute of Medicine, Funding Health Sciences Research: A Strategy to Restore Balance, Washington: National Academy Press, 1990.
7. See National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Federal Science and Technology Budget Priorities —New Perspectives and Procedures, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, December 1988.
8. See U.S. Congress, Offence of Technology Assessment, ''Priority Setting in Science," in Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, (OTA-SET-490), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1991, pp. 137-167.
9. See Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, Federal-State Cooperation in Science and Technology Programs, February 1992.
10. Source: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis.
11. These financial data do not include reimbursement for facilities costs, included within indirect cost payments. For further discussion, see Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable Perspectives on Financing Academic Research Facilities: A Resource for Policy Formulation, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, October 1989.
12. Decisionmaking processes regarding funding responsibilities will need to be developed by the relevant parties involved. For further discussion, see Part III, "Charting a New Course," pgs. 53-58.
13. "Leveraging" as used here refers to the bringing together of resources for the support of research from multiple parties—federal agencies, state government, industry, universities, or philanthropies—to the mutual benefit of all parties. "Cost-sharing" refers to a requirement by research funding agencies that grant awardees or research contractors fund a share of project costs as a condition of receiving the award or contract—in essence, an entry fee.
14. For example, remarks by Walter E. Massey, Director, National Science Foundation, at Director's Seminar, Office of Technology Assessment, September 23, 1991, (unpublished).
15. For a review and analysis of recent literature, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, "Human Resources for the Research Workforce," in Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, (OTA-SET-490), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1991, pp. 205-230.
16. See, for example: "Indirect Costs: The Gathering Storm," Science , 252:636-638, 1991; "Allegations of University Abuses of Overhead System Continue as House Panel Releases a New List of Embarrassing Items," The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 15, 1991; "OMB to Cap Overhead Payments for Research," The Washington Post, May 16, 1991; and "Overhead Cost Research Dear," Nature, 351:255, 1991.
17. Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, The Academic Research Enterprise Within the Industrialized Nations: Comparative Perspectives, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, March 1990.
18. See H. Tuckman, S. Coyle, and Y. Bae, On Time to the Doctorate , Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990; and W. G. Bowen, G. Lord, and J.A. Sosa, "Measuring Time to the Doctorate: Reinterpretation of the Evidence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 88, pp. 713-171, February 1991.
19. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Budget Issues: Earmarking in the Federal Government, Washington, D.C., 1990.
OCR for page 50
Fateful Choices: The Future of the U.S. Academic Research Enterprise
This page in the original is blank.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
funds include
Items in cart [1]
