National Academies Press: OpenBook

Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development (1985)

Chapter: A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II

« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"A Historical Overview of the Evolution of Federal Investment in Research and Development Since World War II." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 36

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A HISTORICAL O5IERlIIEW OF TY.E EtJOLL'TION OF FEDERAI; INVESTMENT IN RES EARCH AND OF7ELOPMENT S INCE WORLD WAR I I Na~chan Ros enbe rg* S tanford University In the past 4S years, ache United S tates has gone through a fundamental. transformation in the manner in which new scientific knowledge is generated. In particular, ache federal government has assumed major responsibilities for decisionmaking, for finance, and even for ache evaluation of ehe "output" of scientific research. The result has been a vast enlargement of the role of the federal government and a huge increase in the volume of resources devoted to scientific research. And yet, there has been no systematic attempt to evaluate "he benefits of these new arrangements and expenditures. The reason is the intractable difficulties associated with any attempt to measure the benefits of an activity whose "output" does not £10w ordinarily co a market where it can be evaluated like other goods and services. Indeed, I am sufficiently self-conscious about even speaking of ache findings of scientific research as constituting an "output" that I insist upon enclosing the word in quota~cion marks. The ''ou~cput'9 of research is so lacking in dimensional icy that there are no direct measures of magnitude or number of units. Measurement and Station problems appear somewhat less complicated on ache input side, where it is at least possible to identify and measure, in dollar terms, specific costs of performing research. At a deeper Petrel, however, economists still are plagued bar the absence of the guidance that is provided ordinarily, in other spheres,, by market forces. For the fact is that Ache federal government has come Leo dominate ache sys rem in the pos war years . (Actually, that domination had been completed largely within ten years after World War IIo ~ Within the federal portion of ehe new it&l) system, ache great bulk of federal expenditures is made on a basis other than the cost estimates submitted by competing potential * lye author acknowledges the able assis~cance of Karl Habermaier and S terse Keehn in the preparation of this paper . The paper should not be quoted without the express permission of the author. 1 -

suppliers. Although those cost estima~ces are, of course, known .o the sponsoring federa' agency, they are not ordinarily the pr_.~nary consideration in awarding con~cracts. Rather, decisions are made on the basis of some quali~cati~re judgments of ache signs ficance of ~ particular proj ect proposal, its relevance to ache sponsoring agency, and ache scientific or technical competence of the competitors. Obvious ly, this is far from traditional government procurement practices involving public advertisement asked bidding for products whose charac~cPriscics could be specified in de~cail9 and award of contracts deco the bidder. who offered to deliver at tile lowest cost. dominating characteristic of the federal R&E) support system (as is characteristic of all financial Support of research) has been precisely that it is not possible deco define, with any precision, the final product, or ''ou~cput, " of the research activity being supported. What has emerged since the Second World War is a system in which the federal go~re.~=ent has become ache dominant purchaser of R&D, but without, at the some time, becoming a primary performer of R&~. Thus, the unique ins titutionai Deere topment has been the manner in which the federal government has accepted a vastly broadened financial responsibility for R&13 without arranging simultaneously for its in-house performance . Rancher, prince incus try has become the main performer of ail federal R&D, and the university community the me in performer of ache teas ic research component . Thus, the enlarged role of ache federal go~rers~men~c irk the support of R&D has been carried out within an insti~cutional framework dominated by contractual relationships between the federal government and private performers. PRE-WORLD WAR II In assessing ache federal role in support of science over the past 40 years, eve first essen~cial observation is that it represented a drastic departure from earlier arrangements. The Second World War marked a sharp discontinuity in the role of Cue federal government with respect to ache financial support of research activities that were not tied directly and explicitly to an existing responsibility of a specific government agency. In spite of the permissive implications of the "general welfare" clause of the U. S . Constitution, federal support for science prior to World War II had been limited sharply by a s~cric~c in~cerpretation of the role of the federal government. How strict that interpretation once was is. apparent in ache early history of one of the most venerable scientific organizations of the federal establishment: the Smithsonian Institution. James Smithson, and Englishman unknown in Washington, DeCo, died in 1829. Smithson, a bachelor of noble lineage but of illegitimate birth, left a substantial bequest 't to found at Washing~con, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an Establishment for the increase and A,

diffusion of knowledge hong men."2 The notion of such a responsibility within the federal establishment was so alien in the 1830' s that Congress debated, for many years, the propriety of even accepting such ~ benefac Lion and the form and functions that such an institution might under~cake. After protracted and acrimonious debate, and powerful opposition from states' rights aj~oca~ces, Congress founded the Smithsonian Ins titution in 1846 . Support for research in agriculture, one of the oldest commitments of the federal government, also was opposed by states' rights advocates and stric~c Constructionists, who, until the Civil War, continued to view the American national government as the 'oosest possible form of federation, with minimal powers at the national center . The Morrill Act, establishing ache land- grant colleges, had passed both houses of Congress in 18S9 in spite of bitter opposition by the South, but was vetoed by President Buchanan. It became law only in 1862, with a new president holding differen~c views on the nature of ache federal union and with a Congress tha~c had recently lost the sectional representation that supported the states' rights view most strongly. 'the Department of Agriculture (USDA) was estate fished ache same year . Although ache Morrill Act provided for the establishment of ''colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts, " the mechanic arts did not, in fact, receive much attention. Very little research of any kind was undertaken by ache new land-grant colleges for ache first 25 years after the passage of the Morrill Act. then ache Hatch Act was passed into law in 1887, it provided federal funds for agricultural experiment stations, but not, significantly, for engineering experimen~c s tations . Nevertheless, engineering experiment stations began to be established early in the 20.ch century. The first one was founded at the University of Illinois in 1903, and the second at Iowa State College in 1904. Other land-grant colleges followed sumac. By 1910, there were 5 engineering experiment stations, and, by 1925, there were 26. In 1938, there were 38. However, few of ache early stations received funding sufficient to support any research. More to- the point for present purposes-, none of them received any federal funds . 4 Un~cit ache Second World War, agriculture continued to occupy its long-standing privileged position in the American political scheme. No other sector of the economy was the recipient of the sort of research support granted by ache federal government, through the Depar~cmen~c of Agriculture, to the agricul~cural experiment Shari ons . Even as lance as the 1930' s, when a presidential science advisory board recommended that ache federal government award grants to private institutions as a way of alleviating unemployment among scientists, ache proposal w5s rej ec~ced as involving an excessive exercise of federal power. - 3

r or :940, the las ~ year the: was not dominated by the bras e:;?enai~ures associated with ~ :;sili~ary buildup, Total faders ~ expenditures for research. development, and R&D plant amounted .o $ J4. i m' :7 ion (see Appendix) . Of Chat, Depar~csnen~c of Agriculture expenditures amounted to $29 . ~ railtion9 or 39 percent. As some :; easure of how dras epically the prewar world differed From the postwar, it should be voiced ~chat, in 1940, the Department of Agri culture ' s research budget exceeded that of the Department of Defense, whose topical research budget amounted co $26 .4 million. Between them, ache two departments accounted for 75 percent of the entire federal R&D expenditures. lathe claimant. on the remaining 2S percent, in descending order of importance, were the Department of the interior ($7. ~ million), the Department of Commerce ($3 . 3 million), the Public Health Service ($2. 8 million), and the National Advisory Committee on Aeronaut, cs ( $2 . 2 mill ion) . ~ Federal expenditures for R&D throughout the 1930 's consul cured between 12 and 20 percent of estimated total R&~ expenditures. By far, the largest contributor was priorate industry, which accounted for about two thirds of the total. Lee remainder came from universities, state governments, priorate foundations' and research institutes. It is interesting to none, that, measured in current dollars, industry R&D expenditures Increased throughout the 1030' s, arc an accelerating rate Coward the end of the decade, and were Deice as large in 1940 ($234 million) as they had been in 193C ($~6 million) . / Since the price level in 1940 was s.~11 below the i9~0 leered, i. was an even greater increase in real terms. hi Ah respect to research conduc~ced at the universities, the Autos reliable prewar estimate is for the year L93S-1936 and employs what was described as the "broadest definition" of research in all discip' ines . For that year, it was es fixated that research expenditures ~ n uni~rersi~tes amounted to about $50 m' ~ ~` ion. Main, Cue dominance of the agricultural experiment s cations is apparent, accounting for 516 pavilion, or almost one Chad of the tonal budge', and a much larger fraction of research :unds thee were earmcriced for specific purposes. WORLD MAR I: Alar) ITS A£~:-.R"4A~ With war prepara~cions and the U.S. entry into 'world War II in December 1~94t, the distinctly bucolic picture of federal R&}) expenditures was transformed permanently. Expenditures that were root war-related grew only slightly during the war in dollar terms and declined substantially in real terms ( see Appendix) . Total federal R&D expenditures rose from $74.1 million in 1940 to a peak of $1, 590.7 million in 1945. Over the some period, the expenditures of Me Department of Defense rose from $26 .4 million to $St3 million. In audit ion, the wartime R&D expenditures contained two distinct novel ties, each, in its ohm way, presaging important postwar changes. 4 -

.- first, alas the massive .Manha.tan Proj ec', -hose resewn oUd2~- in the peak years 1944 and 1945 exceeded suascantiaily shah of -he Department of Defense. The successful completion of the Manhattan Project, and the role of the atomic bomb in bringing. the -ear a~,~i;~s_ Japan co a swift and awesome conclusion, ushered in one age of _.u: "big science." Also, it shaped the postwar imagination about the more constructi~re possibilities of science when it could be applied in an organized and systematic way to the pursuit of human goals. Far smaller in financial teems, but highly significant as art institutional innovation, were the expenditures of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSR0), ~ cider' lien agency operated under the direction of ~Jannevar Bush . Lee OSRD alas no ~ under mititar,~ contra i . Although it operated with federal funds off Wartime projects involving scientific research, it entered in, o contracts in the priorate sector for the performance of that research and it did so under terms that allowed full re imbursement of research cos~cs. The contrast with the situation prevailing during the First World War is instruc~ci~re in appreciating the significance of this new arrangement. During World War 1, the military was in charge completely; indeed, institutional mechanisms for any other arrangement s imp ty did no tic exis t . Rosen one o f the mi 1 i Gary b ranc'~e s identified a particular urgent scientific need, the most li'~cel Or procedure was that a person with the appropriate qualifications Was drafted into that branch. By contrast, the contractual arrangements developed by OS8D durtr.g the Second World War allowed a far Wider range of scientific and organizational capabilities to be placed at the disposal of the war effort. Members of the scientific communi--; -mere called upon to recommend and to guide as well as to participate in scientific research that they expected might have major military payoffs. Not only dtd they not work through or subordinated to the military, they were protruded with direct access to the President and to the pertinent congressional appropriations committees. The success of these contractual arrangements wi th the priorate sector. was of great significance to the organization of American science in ache postwar period. I~c also serves to highlight ~ distincti~re feature of postwar American R&D, as compared to both the prewar period and to other countries. In ~ 940, almost all federal R&D went to support research performed within the federal es tablishment itself ° -by government civil servants, as in the National Bureau of S eandards, the Department o f Agricul. sure, and the Public Heal~ch Service, or by stance institutions financed by federal grants, as in the agricultural experiment stations. In ache postwar period, by contrast, although the proportion has varied substantially over time, the vast maj ority of federal R&D funds, about 75 percent in 1984, has been for acti~ri~cies performed by a variety of organizations in the private sector. Essentially, the arrangements have enabled the federal government deco determine the priorities and broad goals of the ac~ci~rities it finances. At the same time, it has helped co expand the capabilities of priorate institutions and professionals without subj eating them to ehe stultifying bureaucratic 5 4.

~ imitations and limite¢Ofreedotn of auction scram of ten charac, er, He government employment. ~ ~w'ich respect to the scientific communist the postwar arrangements struck ~ balance that placed overall allocation decisions in the hands of the government, while al' owing the scientific community a high degree of autonomy in problem for;nuiation and approach. A maj or ingredient in j edging the benefit Is . Of federal R&D, as this workshop is at~emp~cing to do' should seem to hinge on a j Judgment about the effectiveness of this unique Tigris ion of responsibility between the public and the private spheres . WE POSTWAR PERIO1) lhe mos ~ dis t~ncti~re feature o f federal R&D spending in the ?°s twar period is its sheer magnitude. In absolute terms, there was ~ sharp decline in the immediate postwar years from the wartime higns of 1~94 and 194S, a decline attributable mainly to a radical reduction in expenditures on the Manhattan Pro; epic and, to a lesser degree, to the rapid phasing out of OSRD and a cu~cbacic in Deparmen~c of Defense expenditures ~ see Appendix) . Ne~rertheless, in the earlier postwar years federal R&D expenditures began growing from a plateau that has already several times higher, in real terms, than prewar levels. Tocal R&D spending, as a percentage of gross national product (GET?), was slightly over 1 percent in the immediate postwar years. Ibe percentage grew very rapidly in the second half of the 1050' s and peaked at almost .3 percent in the mid-L960's, after which it declined until the second half of the 1970's (see Table L). The federal R&D budget constitutes a permanently large fraction of a very large total R&13 budget that dis~cinguishes the American economy since World Mar II. The total volume of resources devoted to R&D activities since the end of the Second World liar has omen very Charge, not only by comparison with our earlier history, but also by comparison with other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries. Indeed, for many years, not only in ache war recovery period but well beyond it, to tat U.S R&D expenditures were greater than the total for all other OEC13 countries combined. As late as 1969, when total R&D expenditures for tise Barges t countries (Wes ~ Germany, France, the Uni ted Kingdom, and Japan) were $11. 3 billion, those for the United Stances were $25.6 billion. Not until ache late 197O's did the combined total for those four countries exceed that of the United States. By t979, the four countries were spearing $58 . 3 billion; compared to IS: billion for the United S Cares . lye very large absolute size of the federal R&D budget has included two large separate components of priorate and federal spending. The share of federal spending has been the more volatile componen~c, reaching a peak of about two thirds o f total R&D in the mid. 1960' s, after which ache share declined substantially. Over the same period, pri~ra~ce R&D has tracked more closely the growth of the GNP ~ see Table 2) . s - 6 -

TABLE ~ National Expenditures for Performance of R&D as Percent of Gross National Product by Source, 1953-1984 Year Total Federal Nonfederal 1953 1e 40 a75 o65 1954 1~54 .85 66 1955 le54 .88 ~ OL956 1~913 le15 .83 1957 2e20 lo313 .~32 1958 2~38 le51 .87 1959 2~53 le65 e88 1960 2~67 1~73 .94 1961 2 ~ 73 ~ o 76 .97 1962 2 oT2 1 e75 a97 1963 2~86 1~88 .98 1964 2~96 1~97 o99 i965 2~90 1~88 1~02 1966 2~89 1085 le04 i967 2 0 89 ~ 0 80 1 009 i968 2~82 lotl loll 1969 2. t2 1 ~ 58 He 14 19tO 2~63 l.SO 1.13 ~971 2~4~8 1~39 1.(39 2 2 302 1 24 1 o8 1974 2~29 1.17 1~12 1975 2~2~7 1~1~7 1~10 1976 2~27 1~16 1~.11 99 7798 2.22 1.LO ll.11l6 981 2 3483 1 12 1 326 1982 2.6L 11.2L 1.40 1984 (est ) 2.66 1.22 1.44 Source: National Science Foundation and Deparment of Commerce . .

TAB T. ~ 2 Federal, Primate, and Total R&~, l9S3-1984, Constant 1972 dollars (millions ~ Year Total Federal Private ~ Federal 1953 $8702 $4675 $4027 5307 1954 9456 52Li7 4209 55°7 1955 101~2~L 5473 464,8 5401 1956 i3296 77~4 55632 Sect 95.T 15034 935~7 5637 6205 958 - ~ 5214 iC3262 5952 63~3 959 ~8303 1~1917 63136 6501 i960 3~969 3 1~2725 6968 6406 196i 20664 ~ 3351 73:L3 64~6 1962 21820 140413 7772 6Lo4 1963 23829 1565: 8178 6507 19 64 259 30 17241 a6a9 66 e 5 1965 26~396 17443 9453 64eg i966 2~3442 lasso 10262 6309 1~967 29241 ldl76 ~ 1~065 62~2 :~6a 29333 18108 11725 60.7 1969 ~586 1?259 12377 53.2 1970 28613 lS316 '2297 57.0 1971 27814 15615 12199 56 ~ L 1972 28477 15808 L2669 5'c5 1973 29147 15594 13553 53O5 1974 26736 14826 13910 5106 1975 28153 14537 13616 51.6 1976 29510 15072 11~438 51.1 1977 30506 15382 '5124 50.4 1978 32002 15878 16124 49.6 1979 33612 16407 17205 48O8 l98O 35133 16541 18592 4t.1 1981 36859 1712k 19t35 46.5 1982 38742! ltB41 20901 46.1 1983 (cst.) 40568 la622 21946 45.9 984 (ect.! 42951 19577 23374 45.6 _ .. ' .1 1 Source: The figures for 1953-1964 are from National. Pa~terns of Science ~nd Technology Resources, 1953-1977, and ~che later figures are from Nariona] Pa~cte~.`s of Science and Techraology Resources, 1984. Washington, DC: Na~cional science Fountation.

The most dramatic s ingle event in the pos =-~ar ~ ears . fir. i Us effect on the federal R&D budget, was undoubtedly the Soviet launch of Sputnik in t957 . That event played a ma: or role in the subseque-., growth of many items in the federal R&1) budget. .~os. scrip- ng, of course, was the transformation of ode modes ~ atonal Advisory Cornmi thee on Aeronautics ~ DATA) into the giant National Aeronautics and Space Administration (N'ASA), which administered an enormous R&D program over a ten- year period- - ~ program that assumed somewhat more modest proportions after the first tuner landing in 1969 ~ see Table 3 ~ . Nevertheless, it is important to insist that the size and composite an of the federal budget have been driven by a sequence of Excel events and changing domestic concerns and social priorities, among which the largest and most persistent have been national defense and strategic considera~cions. A detailed history of the postwar federal R&D budget would have to be in~cert~ined with a series 0 f international events and changing condi Lions; among them , a prolonged Cold War posture; a Soviet nuclear explosion in L949 and thermonuclear explosion in 1951; the outbreak of the Korean jar in June 19SO; the emergence of missile technology in the mid-i9SO's, which transformed the nature of military hardware; Sputnik and the subsequent commitment deco ~ space program; the budgetary impact 0 f Mae 'Vietnam War; the changing social priorities associated twitch Great Society programs; the growth of environmental, safety, and health concerns ; a ''War on Cancer"; a huge growth in energy research by eve Energy Research and Development Administration and, later, the Department of Energy; and, more recently, a widening concern over the apparent decline in IJ. S ~ international compet-~reness, especially i n high-technology industries. To calibrate just one of these occurrences, energy R&D was slightly over 3 percent of federal R&D spending in 1971. As a result of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) embargo and intense concern over the future cost as wel ~ as ache reliability of overseas oil supplies, energy R&D expenditures rose to a peak of t2 percent of the federal R&D bud":: in 1980 and hare subsided since to less than percent . ME DOMINANCE 0E THE MILITARY COMPONENT From what has been said already, it will not be surprising to note that federal R&D expenditures have exhibited a high degree of concentra~cion by government department or spending agency. lithe main contours of that concentration may be stated simply. Although there have beer some drastic swings in the share of ache defense budget, it has dominated the federal R&D budget for the last quarter century, falling below 50 percent of federal R&D obligations only in the single year L966 ~ see Table 4) . Indeed, in 1960, it constituted no less than 80 percent of federal R&D funds . I ~ declined sharply from that Level ~ a decline offset by the growth in the space program) and hovered around the 50 percent Level until the early 1980' s, when it rose swiftly again. If expenditures on space - related ac~ci~rities and 9

TABLE 3 Trends in Federal and Nonfederal R&D Outlays, 19 5 3 and 1960 - 1984 (percents ~ ~ed eral ,. . 1 V , . , . _. _ . .. . . . . . Year ~o tal 3e~ense Space Civilian Non° related related related Federal 9 55 ~4 48 ~ 5 4o . 1 960 65 52 ~ 9 7~ t 96 t 65 50 6 ~ =5 962 54 -8 7 ~ 3O 1 965 66 41 1 ~ ~ 1 3, 196J, 66 37 19 9 34 t965 65 33 21 1 t 35 1966 64 33 19 12 ~6 ~ 967 62 35 ~ 4 1 ~ =8 1968 61 ,^: ,3 13 3~ 1969 58 34 1 1 13 12 15?: 57 3~ 10 1- ,= t a7 1 56 ~2 9 1: 1 972 56 32 9 1 5 4 ~ 1973 5' 30 8 ~ 5 ~- ~ 974 5t 27 8 1 6 43 1975 5t 26 8 ~ 17 49 1 976 51 26 ~ t 7 49 1977 50 25 ~ 17 5C 1 978 50 24 7 1 9 50 1979 49 23 7 19 51 t 980 47 22 7 t 8 53 1?81 46 23 - ? 1 6 54 t982 46 25 7 14 5d t983 (est.) 46 27 6 t: 54 ~ 984 ( est. ) 46 29 6 t t 54 No te : Detail may no t add to 100 because of rounding . Source: Na~:onal Patrerns or Science and TechnoJogy Resources, 1984. Washing~con , OC: National Sc fence Foundation . . - 10 -

. TABLE 4 Federal Funds for R&I) by Maj or Budget Function, 1960- 1984 Year 1960 1961 t962 1 963 19" 1 965 966 1967 1968 ~9 970 1971 ten 1973 974 97S 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 (est.) l9B. ( - t.) Dollan in billion' ., . ~ TQt~ Oetense All other a 9 to 13 14 15 As 17 16 16 ~5 to lo 17 17 19 21 24 26 28 30 33 36 38 ~6 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 9 9 g 0 0 2 ~3 4 5 18 22 25 32 2 2 3 s B 8 8 8 7 8 10 12 ~3 t4 ~5 5 4 4 14 As percent of total obligations Oslms. All Ott,af 80 20 77 23 70 30 62 36 55 dS so so 49 51 52 48 52 48 54 46 ~8 48 46 46 48 ~9 ~0 50 50 50 50 45 ~9 34 30 NoTE: 0~ ~Y not ~ ~o to~ dve to ~9. Esemat" gr ~ to, ~ 9"—~ =ange ~nfi=n~ me r~ d co~yes~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r - ~= Oa~ tor l960~77 a`e s=~n ~ otl, - bons; ~ t. '9703 ue ~ ~ ~9 - "~ ~ 52 52 54 54 52 St 50 50 so ~0 50 55 61 66 70 50URCE: E~ ~ d ~ Pr~ Otle. ~ ~' ~ 8~. Speci~ ~n~is K,- 8udg. d ~ U.S. Go~ 1964. t983. ~ 11

atomic energy are added Deco the defense budget (as ha~rir.g s Prong defense-minded j unifications ), defense - related categories have dominated the federal 2&D budget co sally for the past 30 years. In 1982, the Department or Defense (DOD), the Department of Energy ~ DOE), and NASA accounted for 97 percent of 811 federal R&D funds to incus trial f rms Ihe ~~&c~ anal Science Foundation (NSF) was established in ~ 950, and! during the 19SO' s ~ the National Insti~cutes of Health began ~ o support basic as well as more applied research e However, their expenditures were minuscule in comparison with defense and defense- rela~ed expenditures. Beginning ire the mid-1960's, the decline in the space budget was offset broadly bar the growth in R&D expenditures for medicine ~ Which have grin ''cry rapidly in the pas ~ 20 years energy, and agricut cure . Nevertheless, defense and space have constituted around 60 percent or a great deal more of the federal R~3 budget for the past 25 years . In the 1980' s, the sharp increase in military RS`D has reversed the ris ing share o f civilian- related R&D that occurred during ache L9/0' s (see Table 5) . The extent to which the defense budget dominates the total federal R&D budget has another ~ mportant implication. lye defense R&I) budget is far more development- intensive than the rest or the federal budget. Me result is to impart a strong bias in the overall Federal R&D budge ~ in favor of the development component . And, gi ten the large share of total R&~) spending held by the federal oudget, tine result is also to 1 apart a stronger development bias co the composition of cotal R&D spending. If the t982 federal budget is broken down ~ nto defense and nonde fens e components, the share of basic, applied, and development expenditures within each total appears as follows: 19 8 3 Federal R&D Expendi Cures L3 ~ 9e share ~ Defense Nondefense Basic 3.2 33.7 Applied lilt. 0 35 . 3 De~rel~opment 88 5 - 31.0 100.0 100.0 The larges sac i tems in the COD R&D budge t invo lore ache deve lopmen~c of advanced weapons systems, construction and testing of prototypes, Eric. Conversely, the share of DOD' s R&D budget that goes deco basic and applied research is, by far, the smallest of any maj or government agency . - i2 -

1 1 ' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O ~ O O O ~ 1 Jo l- i8~. art - l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ i ! ~ o o o c, o o ~ ~ o o ~ o o o ~ o 21 1§ at2,3.oq" ~~0~,-` I I ° a 0 0 0 0 0 e' 0 0 e: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i} ;~ i} ~ A a t~ ~ ~ ~ _1 ~ I-__ 0 0 0 <o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 NIA-s,-- Atop _ ~ ~~- 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ e, ~ _ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C, ~ _ £~10~. to O O ~ ~ · C. ~ ~ ~$ ~ 0 ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ _ ~ 2 .,, ~~,c-~_~~ lS-o-RO~ ~ O ~ ff O ~ `0 ~ ff ~t O ~ ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ O ~ ~ I&~, l~~-~ ~4 ~ _ ~ O O ~ O ~—~ ~O ~ ~d~ ~—_·—~ ·d d~ 1'~~ _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ l. ~ ~ _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ U] ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ L. o ~ ~ ssIx3~s A-_~_g _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ . 0 ~o~ ~—~ —t~Cl ~ ~ ~ _ ~ 3 2 2 ~ .,, 23 ~ ~ R 3 o O - ~ ~ - ~ _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ ~ _' - ~ ~ 40 ~ _ _ C~ ~ ~ ~ l O O oq'~R :~_ ~ 1~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -_~A azz3- -_ ~ , _ ~ O O 'lo.~" o ~ 81358~' o ~ ·~.e,-~- -~__~-, o ~ la.~-l 683S8~- . "o" ~ 11. ~ C, ~ ,- ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o · O ~ ;g 8~' '~.S. u, _ ~ ~ _ ~ - ~ ,1. ,Ililallill jilt — 13 — 0 0 ~ 0 ~ e, 43 _ o ~ ~ ~ <. _ ~ ~, _ c~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ o ~9 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ — .8 t0 — ~ t~ t 40 _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ — ~SS-°~go · O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 34~A _ ~ ~ _ ~ _ _ __ _ ~ O · — ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ O ~ — _ ~ n ~ ~ ~ 53 te ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ _ ° _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ ao d9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~Si~,3~' ~. ~ _ _ ~ _ o — 40 40 ~ O — ~ — — ~ ~ ~ '= ~ ~ g, C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~7 ~o ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ ~ _ <~ j.! li 11 31 i li t! ts t] I] . i ~L 3 3 . .

.\ further aspect of the development emphasis in defense it&i) ~ a Sign concentration of the federal it&l) budget in 3 us ~ Rio ~ ..dus -~ ,' sectors. In 1981, snore than one half of federal ~ur.ding for R&;) --e-.. -o aircraft and missiles, and almost one quarter to Electra Cal machinery. Thus, over 75 percent of all federal R6cO went .o chose ego industry sectors . Sonelec~crical machines was ~ dis Cant Chirp ~ and motor vehicles and other eransportatian equipment, fourteen ~ see Table 61. The aircraft and missiles sector not only absorbs a large fraction of the federal R&D budget, but it also is the only maj or industry sector that provides substast~ciatly less than half of its R&D founding from 1 nternaL sources (27 percent in :98t, up from 21 percent in 19,L). In the electrical equipment sector9 by contrast, although the federal contribut'`on has been extremely large, it has represented much smaller fraction of tomcat R&D spending in the ~ ndustr,~. In 1981, private funding accounted for 62 percen~c of industry R&D, a sizable increase over t971' when the ratio was only 49 percent. In the case of communication equipment and electronic components, which account for most of electrical equipment R&O' ache share of private funding was even greater. In 1981, 66 percent of such Rod) funding was financed privately, as compared with only 46 percent in 1971 Clearly, military expenditures have resulted in building the off) capability of private industry, most directly ire Ache design, IS ring, and manufacture of military' hardware. Such R&D spending has had certain distinct characteristics. It has been overwhelmingly for de~reloputent 4; it has been directed toward categories of products for which the federal government was also, simultaneously, conducting large-scale procurement programs; and it has been marked by an extremely high degree of industrial concenera~cion. Assessment of the civilian benefits of military R&D spending would appear to be simplified by the fact that military R&D spending exhibited such a high degree of indus~crial concentra~cion. Indeed, i: is apparent that a large fraction of civilian spillovers has, in the paste been concentrated in civil aviation, computers, and telecommunications. More difficult questions, however, relate to secondary transmi~ctal~s to other industries; those are harder to trace . Much of the " output" of military R&D has been incorporated in improved produces and processes chat Cadre been diffused widely throughout the economy . Military ~ and space ~ programs have played a major role in the development of new and improved materials with highly desirable performance charac~cerist~cs (such as light weight, high strength, durability, and electrical conduc~ci~rity). Similarly, military pro grams have been highly important to development of a wide range of electronic components (especially semiconductors). Incus, capturing the full civilian benefi~cs of military R&D would involve an extensive tracing out of many thousands of small improvements in virtually all sectors of the economy. - 14 -

TABLE 6 Company End Federal Funding of Indeusteria1 R&I) for Sales reed Industries, 1971 and 1981 Ton Fan Comouty ~ . ndus~y t971 l9Bt t971 1~1 t971 t - 1 Millbm ~ curr~ "Hers To~ . e e e ~ e e e e e e ~ ~ e e ~ e e e e e e ~ - - e ~ S18~320 S51 .830 S7166e Stetd68 stO$— S;35$362 Ch~l~ ~d ~llbd ~ e e e ~ e · - ~ e · e e · - I $832 Se325 t 84 383 1 ~648 ~~9~2 tll0~ d~ ~ e e · - c ~ - e ~ · - e · · - 41 $009 2 5~53 1 s9 3~7 S50 2~1 8e Oru98 $ - td IT~i~ and o~ d~ ~ .. . ~ ~ ~ 823 207 - 2S 202 79~ z7~ pe - ~'—~ing ~ ~on 505 1,9202 17 t~ .88 ,,m Rubtac pnodhK5e .~ 289 8QO3e 69 t9o2 221 616 r~u,, ~ ~ ~ ~ 2n sBs 6 182 266 707 Fornous n~e and prodsKts t4. S603 2 t4o2 le42 4'e. Nkxrhrrou n~r~u~ and produc58~ 128 3 ~ ~ 4o~ 124 293 Fab~ m~ ~um 242 638 11 80 230 55B hk~n dx~~K~d nu~chnn ry ~ee~e~ e ~ t~8BO 8~800 315 739 1$545 B~061 Eiac~k~u m crnn8~y ~ee_~ce~ 4~$389 t 0$486 24~58 3e94~2 2413t 6~502 C~ ~It iU,d d~k ~_ ~ ~ "d ~ ~ ~ _ ·~~ e~ eeeeeea~ e 4in ng~ $8nd ni 8 de ~ ~ eeeeea~~~e _~and~ S~c md n~wn—~ ins~ ~d. sw~ic~ ~ and omer insDena A11 o~er manut~ng.~ Nk~nnarnnbKatuhng k~dustn a ~ ee rce ~ eeeeeeeaee~~e e~ e a~S ~ a~d p~ Inch~7b. Ch~rnK~U. .eee~ea~ea. Orugs and m~ - 'd ath. d'~ P6t~ u~n ~Hhing and ·~tnY ion ~ e~ e RutOx~ pnoducSe ae~~~e~ ee~~eree~ ee P~inury n~abUs . . ooo~ 0eee~ e~eeeeeee~~ee F.rous m~ md ~ Nc~dern~us n~rbBs and pnoducSe e. F~d m~ produ~ . N~d n_ EhPc~k~d ·cpJcrn. ~ .~.ee~oo.oOo..e~e.~e C~ ~ and d~c - .nLAun~rn. eeee.eeeee.0oeeeeeeo0~e ~r veh~ ar~d ome ~~ 2473t ~e396 1~7t. SeOS94 4'BB1 t1,702 746 3~68S 133 1,6802 1,479 2.tB7 309 70`,2 3.864 8,50 t t" 638 14 t.252 4 1,481 4,~1 1,01 ~ 3,201 583 3.~7 t 20 t 285 St2 2~0008 150 2— ~3 t,762 2,889 8.325;2 395 9632 2.494 7,3 - 704 2.0 - 452 8803 252 1,tsg Mi~1ions ot con~n 19~ 01~ . . . . . . . . . S19.081 S26.S1 t S7, 984 S8.423 S11,097 S18.087 1,908 2~72. 192 t96 1,716 2,528 t,OS1 1,306 t" 168 88S t,1 t8 as7 1,.102 26 108 831 t,~lo 526 9— t8 7~ 508 90e 301 ·1 o2 72 9P 230 315 283 e~55 ~ 93 m 3402 ~SO e29C' 2 lo~e le48 2'e2 733 t702 ~ e2O' 129 lSO e2S2e 326 1t 41 2e40 285 1,937 3'e478 328 378 1,609 3,100 4~57t 5~353 2~352 2.Q2eB ~ ~n 3~326 ~ 3em 1,540 1,108 t,304 ~t~ ·¢ldPrn~,t ·eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeec..eeeeeeeeeee. 1~841 2eB02e' 322e 3Bo2 t'52?e 2e24t 4inen K ~J~d nnN8db eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee·eee~ ee~ 5eCtk~ 5~995 e4~o25 e~e3JUt l~OS9 1~637 F+ct ~donud Jnd ~ci~ldb itrsUrn~nt~ ~eeee~ ee m t~8~5 171 326 607 1~558 Skianbffc 3~de m~ctu~lt8d n, 88tuil' iuorunnent eeeeeeeeeeaeaeeeeee. eee..e 139 86C2 t5 210 125 657 ~ ~ h_ v_ ~ o~e j~~ oo~ea~~eeee~ 437 1,0202 ~~ 1~2 eme ~1 AU o~~te ~~~~~uO~ i~ ~ 3~009 dl2SO2 ~~tl 4908 2.S98 3~169 N—m—A~ i—~ 733 t~Q6o2 47t ~2 e~2 6t3 . . e ~ ~ f e~a,,,,~ G3verter ~W ~ ~ d~ u~d ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t972 do~ BMJR - ~: N~ Sa~ h~n, R~rcn ~ Oe_cpm~in Indu~y, 19~0 (NSF 82~1~, po. 11, 1. ~ lt ard N - ow 5 F~

Assess ing she independent impact o f mi1 i vary R&D spending ~ s camp Licated further by the ro le 0 f federal procuremen ~ ?° i ic ies . Cost military R&D has been directed at the development of products for purchase by the military itself. Indeed, the allocation of military R&D expenditures may be taken as an excellent gut de to rotary procurement inceptions. Thus, the responsiveness of the priorate sector at any time has to be treated as reflecting ache j Dint effects of the military R&D spending plus the powerful pull of procurement contracts, which may be very large. Assessing the impact.of military R&D is a highly complex exercise, but one that is central to the purposes of this workshop. There is a widely heed perception that bye civilian benefits of military R&D expenditures in the t980's are a great deal lower than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, as mill nary it&l) has become concerned with the increasingly arcane and exotic needs of modern weapons systems. More rigorous treatment of die ~ ssues would be welcome The current debate otter ache nature of the appropriate European response to the American S trategic Defense Ini~ia~ci~re suggests strongly a very different set of perceptions concerning the potential civilian benefits of military R&D today--although, obviously, more is in~roi~red than a narrow calculation of potential economic benefits. At issue are ques tions that go beyond the direct technology transfer of specific pieces of hardware- -as in j et engines, semiconductors, and new materials - ° from military to civilian contexts. char are the benefits flowing from minis ary spending on "upstream" teas ic research or applied research of a more generic Cure? Are there importan~c economies of scale in R&D ire certain industry sectors where mlittary expenditures are responsible for attaining minimum s ize thresho ids ? For that s izab Le phalanx o f contractors performing military R&D who also design and sell civilian produces, are there s ignificant R&D learning experiences on the military contracts that benefit their ci~ril~an~oriented activi~cies? Empirical evidence on such questions would be helpful in assessing the tmpac~c of military R&D. FEDERAL SUPPORT OF SCI ONCE The po-arwar Rho structure has been one in which federal expenditures have financed somewhere between one half and two thirds of tomcat R&D, while ~e great bulk of R&D activity, including the federally financed share, has been performed by priorate industry. This pat~cern is intensifies by the dominance of military it&l) in the federal R&D budget and tise developments intensive nature of such R&1) 9 which tends to find its natural home in priorate industry. Estimates for 198S are that 73 percent of all R&D will be performed in private industry, and only 12 percent in federal intramural laboratories ( although 47 percent of all R&D will be financed by the federal government), leaving only 15 percent of R&D performers still unaccounted for.

rnac is, however, an extremeiv critical IS percent. ApproximateL;~- 3 percent consist of federally funded research and development centers (rFRDC's) administered by universities and colleges; 3 percent are o cher nonprofit Bonsai tutions; and 9 percent are unifiers i ties and co lieges . ~ In recent years, about one half of all teas ic research has been performed by universities and colleges, and substantially more then one half when F=DC's at universities and colleges are included (see Table 7) . The comparable figure for i9S3 was slightly less than one third. Currently, only 15 percent of basic research is performed within the federal estabLishmen~c. Indeed, unfit the 1970's, basic research performed by priorate industry exceeded that of the federal government substantially. During the 1970's, the levels were quite similar. In the 1980' s, so far, industry perform mance again is exceeding that of the federal government. The extent to which the federal governmen~c has dominated the financing of basic research may be seen in Table 8. Although that share has been declining for the past several years and now is at Lowest level for the past 20 years, ~ ~ still is two thirds of the JO tat . Within the federal budget, the support for teas ic research is . — l as concentrated in a few agencies. By far ache largest federal obligations are in the Department of Health and Human Ser~ric~s, --here the basic research budget consists o~rerwhelmingly of the expenditures of the National Institutes of Health. lithe next largest obligations, in descending order, are in NSF, DOD, DOE, and NASA ~ see Table 9 ~ . lithe growing federal support of unifiers ity science can be traced back to the wartime exper'~en~cs of OSRD (and to the views articulated by Vanne~rar Bush, itt director, in his influential book, Science, fine Endiess Frontier 6), to the formation of new agencies such as the Office of Naval Research in 1946 and NSF in 1950, and to budget support from established agencies such as DOD and USDA. The increase of support to universities represents the most dramatic of all institutional shif~cs in the postwar years . I ~ has transformed the maj or ur~i Eternities into centers for the performance of scientific research, for which there is no precedent in the prewar period. It is important to stress the recency of this de~rel~opment, s ince it now seems natural to think of the universities as the obvious locus of scientific research. In fact, American univers ities initiated the protracted process responsible for this transformation only about a century ago, with ache founding of such institu~cions as the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Chicago. Before the establishment in the last decades of the 19eh century of gradusee pro grams involving research and leading to the award of the Ph. D ., higher education in this country consisted primarily of training young men in the liberal arts . Pos "graduate education was only for specific professions such as the law or the clergy. There was great 17

I ABLE- ~ Basic Research Performance by Sector, 195 3, 1960, and tam- 1384 kdollars in millions ~ @ 7 Current tollare . - - . . . . .. Untversities Other Medial and Associated ~osprotit Year To Cal ~,rer=~st l~dustr' Colleges EPIC ° ~ `~tStutio" ,953 441 tOt t51 110 ~i, 46 '9~1 1 r197 t60 776 433 97 ~ ,1 19652 20555 364 59;E t ~138 208 25 1 966 2 0814 385 624 1, 30' 227 275 t967 ',056 435 629 1~457 250 ZE35 t 968 ~ c 296 432 642 I, 649 Z76 297 t969 3~441 5~32 6t8 1~711 275 Z05 t 970 '' 549 577 602 1 '796 269 305 1971 396~72 5a6 590 t,9t4 260 322 1 972 3~329 625 593 2!~022 244 345 t973 3,946 SOB 631 2,053 297 357 t974 4~239 696 699 2,15` 285 405 1975 ~ 4,608 754 750 2,41a 309 425 1976 4,977 786 819 20 549 359 464 t9Tt 5~5'r 914 911 2c '300 402 510 t978 6c392 t,029 iOt375; '9t76 567 ~5 t979 7~257 1 9089 9 9158 39619 7t8 680 980 8~089 ~ ~ ~ 82 t 9 '25 4~026 786 770 981 9~2t7 1~302 t ,641 4~576 863 S'5 982 ~ ,886 1 c465 t ,850 4,851 370 850 1983 (I,Jle) 10~6tO t,650 2~050 5~135 900 8t5 19" (eJt.) 1 t ,8~ 1 ,~ 2~3= 5,9~ 915 925 Ca~tact doll~3 955 742 t 69 256 1 84 55 78 1960t t ,729 230 547 622 1 39 . tgt l 9652 ~,41 6 485 796 1, 51 ~ ZJ7 340 1 966 '. 660 500 81 ~ 1, 693 295 359 967 3~853 54B 796 t '854 315 360 t968 4~001 525 178 2 #003 ~5 ~ t969 ''955 617 712 1~9135 319 t52 t970 3~6395 634 659 t997' ~5 334 971 3~836 6t ~ 615 2~001 Z12 315 1 97Z t.829 625 59' 2~022 244 345 t97, ,,766 582 597 1~966 284 337 974 3,7SJ 62t 608 1 ~922 254 352 975 3,720 995 581 1 ,955 25t 338 976 3v770 596 619 1 ,933 Zt2 350 3 ,959 649 651 1 ,989 286 364 ~ 9`t8 4,250 684 668 2, 1 ~ 2 3~Tr 389 1sr9 4,4~ 666 708 2,209 439 4~6 1960 . 4,548 665 t43 2,266 443 431 tg89 4,7z! 66B 841 2,347 443 42B t982 4,149 702 894 2,~Z. 411 412 1 985 ( 66t o ) 4 ~ f366 7 S3 9 5t 2, 'S8 41 ~ 406 t9" (ootO ) 5~229 793i 1,021 .2, S75 429 411 . . . 1 Data for 1954-59 cac be touDd ~ ~atloz"1 ?sttor" os. M: Becourees, 1951-77 1IS, 17 -3t O ) . 2D.ta for t 961 - 4 c" ~ to~d ~ ~ !latlo~1 Pattor" of sclecce acd Tec~oloa, Becourees, ,981 (5S, ~t -31 1 ). ~Based oc GIIP ~pli~it price dotlator. SO0RCE: lstional Sctocce ~ou~datios. 18 -

. I.ABL~- ~ Sources o f Funds for Bas ic Research by Sector, 1953, 1960, and ~ 965-1984 (dollars in millions) Curry dollars Univers~tias Other Federal "d nonprofit Year Total Ge~rer~ent lcdwtry Colleges ~atitutiorm 1 953 ", 25t t 53 1 0 ~ tg"1 t ~t97 115 342 72 68 t9652 2, 555 t ,~)9 461 1 64 1 at t966 20Sl4 1,378 510 197 t29 1 967 ~ c 056 2, 201 ' 492 223 t 40 1 968 A, ~6 2 D '36 ~5 =6 1 49 1969 3.01 2,441 ~0 ~8 162 1970 ',~9 2,4 - 528 3% 182 t971 3,672 29529 Ha? 4~ t96 972 A, 8~ 2 C 633 563 41 5 at 8 t973 3,940 2,7~ 605 4" 224 t974 4,2Y9 2,912 651 432 244 1975 4,6C)8 ',139 705 478 286 1 976 4 ,977 3, 436 . 769 475 ~7 19~17 5,577 ',823 8% 5= 3~ t 978 6, 392 4, "5 9" ~5 ~8 1979 7,257 4,044 t ,~1 7t ~ 41 t to) 8,039 59559 t,265 ~5 460 t 981 9, 217 6, 236 i, 5a5 9~ ~ t982 99~6 6, - 1,~5 983 510 1983 (~-) tO,6tO 6,970 29025 1,~5 -~0 1984 (~at. ) t t ,8% 7,=5 2,=0 1 ,2~ 585 Constant dollars" 1 g53 742 421 2~ t7 45 tg60, 1,729 1,030 497 tO' 99 19652 3,4t 6 20415 620 2t9 162 t966 3,660 2,Sr1 665 256 16B 1 967 t, as, 2,774 622 281 176 196B 4,001 2,8Tr 649 335 180 t969 ',985 2,829 623 346 t8r l9tO 3, - 5 2,733 ~8 3" ~ 197t ',836 2,644 570 418 204 t972 ',829 2,633 565 41 5 218 t 975 3 .168 2, 589 573 391 21 ~ t974 3f757 2f 5139 567 ~6 21 5 1 975 ',720 2, 540 582 388 2~ 1976 ''770 2,604 591 360 225 1977 39959 2,7t8 607 '74 240 1978 4,250 2,956 641 402 251 1979 41438 ',085 667 455 251 1980 4, 548 3,128 709 453 258 1981 . 4,7Zr 3,199 8t' 466 249 1982 4,749 3, t 60 872 471 246 t 9~ ( ost . ) 4, 886 ', 295 938 494 249 1984 (~.) 5,229 ',427 1 ,006 ~ 5U 259 1 Data tor 1954-59 c" be found ~ Batzocal Pattor" 02- R&D Resour~aa 1953-77 (J5! 77-310). 2Data for 1 96t -64 e~ be r~ouad ~ latio~l Patterce of Scionce "d Technolo~ Rceourceo, 1981 (NSF 8t-31 t ) . 3Based on GIP "plicit prico de=ator. SO~CS. Satio~l Sc$~nce Fou~dation. - 19

~ i3LE ) Federal Obligations for Basic Research, by Selected Agency, Fiscal Years 1975-1985 (dollars in millions) nc~ cad Autos 197S 1976 197t 1978 1979 19~30 1951 1982 198 ~ 9" ~ 995 . Total, "1 ~to. 2,S - .4 2,767.5 ,,2S8~6 ',698~6 4.192~7 4,~4c2 5,041., 5~481~6 6,26a.' 6,951~O 7,637.6 "turtle. Kept of "facula. Cooporatl,. State "ch Me ~con. S"t ~ C - ' Sac co~'c "~b ^e Bcon~ce ~ .~.ta" - ~~ forget "~. 0" or It' Coo' ~ We'd at of. Sru~pr"~ton S"ttatt~1 leyort~ ~ Dolt or Co_r¢-, ?Oi~. "extol ~ or Items Ot~p Co_ red Depot of Deal' toter D.~at of the ~ splat or the le" "~at of e" U.r form Deem ~~ - "y~_. or Mucatton. Its "~O_t of War - , total Dent of Ate, M=, ~ Galore. To~ U,@@llOlo ;~ ` Rlttl ~ J.t't Matte" or "nc-tio. action ~tit~t" ox. Melts Other H" Apt or filth ~ H~ ~—ce, step "cobol. Drag Mao ~ It - ~" Stool institute or Bath Ot"r De,. or t" motor, To ~~ of ~ - 3.olo~c" Airs Ot - r stupor "per - - t of utter, tot" Off of lace bout. Web. a S"t~tic. Dopers_. of "hor, Its D put of State, Rota "~ tot ~tor~t'1 But Other stem Apt or tr~rpo~tion. to~ Other ~.por~tlon kept of ~ In, % other ~l" ~c, tee ~~t'1 1~to~ ~~ "d ~ blow "^ro~te1 grotto. 4 "t'1 "~`c~ ~ S Jetto - 1 "~. ~O~=O. uteri ~atretton 611 Oth r ~~e .1 15J.~2 171 .4 91~2 tO11~7 ~4 J.'o l |/1 J/` Jo; ~o6 |/Ji J/J~ 21ol ' 2;~!~6 JtA 8lA '/` J/` o' ado 8~9 1t.0 5-4 508 2.a 5~2 500~~ ~26~9 71et 81-4 1 tl!~.t 129~7 78~9 ~-9 50~7 Stop J/1 J/1 |/1 lII 905.7 9~60' 66~2 52~di 1 .9 5el 823~5 9200' t 7~1 9~2 l/A JJA 31/1 J/A |/1 R/1 J/Ji J/d S4o9 54~, 41 .9 o48 Uet6 39 0 5 14~4 14oO 9~5 4~5 905 ~eS .9 teO t ·5 _ ~ e5 204o 5 t 2506 480, ,.8 i/` J/A 2dio7 |/l |/1 J/1 t2~, 609 - 5.4 ~r,., 99 e0 t55~6 a`~8 '506 |/1 - .5 1,t1905 62.t ll.9 t,052.8 1 1202 |/1 |/1 6'o6 ~0 40~' .' s.' s.' .7 24201 2S6o. ~J.2~4 ~ t"~2 6So6 7005 ,.9 664 J/1 l,tJ. |/A l/A 30e8 '1 o4 Jt~ |/1 l/1 ~ ~ 08 ~ ~ 09 5~9 ~o8 5~9 jo' ~o1 0~4 471 ~ 5 106~1 1tSoO 72~' 192~1 950 t 1 05.0 ,~9ol 59~, |/4 20~6 "0. 5 `~6,oO 1,2920' I/1 t9.9 8/1 18., l/1 ,181.1 #/1 15.1 J/1 ~J1 1, 576.0 ` 9406 ~fJi t'>463~7 |/1 t767 65~9 72e S Bo6 4/507 ~605 49~0 tloO 9°8 14~7 7°9 1~4o7 Tc9 'e7 2~' ~S *7 157.9 75.2 I/1 J/1 606 ''07 2.' tso9 1208 Jol 5~3 152~2 21 `~9 ~2 85e'' t7~6 523.t |/1 J/l ,/1 JIA t '762 o7 t 1~.7 .~20' 1506 7S o6 11 o5 47~3 t2~8 9~5 9.5 509 -, _ ~ B/1 lll JIA O ~ ~ — t .Z ., _ _ _ _ _ 1.2 _ _ ~ a2 1.7 2e3 - 314.1 330.8 86 04 1 92.9 8t.9 91-, S/` I/1 '.6 3~9 |/l 111 . 1 . 38.1 to? 101 ·5 ·5 _ 2- t6.2 t609 t5.6 t6.5 .6 ., 604~ 5 68601 t48.1 tR.t 233-0 2~-' 1 2S.8 t 45.8 92~4 72-9 20-6 t ~o2 S86~3 642~2 J/1 ·/1 J,/1 I/` Ui l/1 B/1 ~t/1 511 lIA ,900.4 2.10.? 2, t /~6~, 1 lt.3 te766~8 Ze020~7 t7~' 607 SOo? 76e 5- t,.6 15~9 53-S S2~6 t ~e6 7.9 4~6 ,.1 4.6 '.1 '.7 6.S |/1 - 1 .o t .0 2~2 316200 ~o. 21Se3 232~5 - ~8 t 00 aS JIJi Il/J. jo9 4~d |/1 S/` 3tlo8 ~So3 203 ~o2 oS oS 205 2~? 19~2 2Oo5 1lloJ. 19~2 e9 lo' 7SS.6 81606 206 e ~ 209 o 2 ~OS o`. 308 e S t 64~2 t~t .' CI7~7 llt.O t4~2 12~4 767~7 841~.t JI' !1/1 JiA l/' |/` lIi |/` J/\ I/1 ~6 !.47S.4 2~79'o t ~ ~S.O 1 61;o. 2~3t,.0 2~6aro? 17~` 2000 t O,oO t 24at - 2'o5 J,5~5 64.t 69~9 t4~8 9-, '.6 4~0 ,.6 4.0 S., 4.5 _ _ J/1 J/1 _ O .9 .6 09 .6 ,.5 4.0 419 07 . 24001 23~6 |/\ 4.7 |/1 U3~2 208 .S 208 1804 17.8 ~6 91,.2 2113. 5 359-9 2tX .2 10806 tJ'., 90-S J/1 |/` ]/A 2~925.'3 t*o, 2~758o 1 805 0208 52~, 63~; 6~5 2~6 2.6 4.5 |/1 ·4 ·4 7.6 '/1 JIl l/1 '/1 - - - - 4. 1 207 '.9 ,1 2.e "5 .e r~ '/~ '/~ t/` 'l~ 'l~ '/` JJ~ sI '7.. 1~.7 a.' 6.0 toOt ·~.6 10.5 '2.7 22.2 22~7 25.s - -, ~t.2 413.B =9~7 5l 2.J - .1 ~t .1 ~5.7 6t7.0 - .1 - 6.7 u6.a 52t.6 62~.9 ~.0 ~r''.' 835.2 - 6.6 916.t 9~.' t,t72.S '.~S-8 ,.9 1Bo9 9~' Je9 9~5 14.' t SoO t2~9 14~' 1 Se2 t S.O 260t n.o . M.2 ~9 U.6 49~8 S3-6 9to6 611.1 70~5 76~8 ~ ,. ~J ;ael——~ tGr_F d<~1S~—~:b b—~—ot U—S81~ · a~~oa ~ereeton Sor ~ ~re 1qr8~0. 3/ ~el - .e t" tor~r coowreetr s"" "~rch 0r ~ S¢~ - ce ~ "~tto. ~atretto. tor [See" ~ t97WO. ~cl~— proc~ o2 t~ ~co~e ~~rch—~ce, ~ S~t~tical &~~rt~ ~n~ce, ~ th- ~r Coo~—et~ Serrice tor ~ec~ ~ ~ 19 rt- t 979 . .~/ 2ncludeo p~o~ ot ~o ~~c Bo~rch ~mce ~ ttlo Statistic~ ~p~e~ Sor~ce tor n · Idicat" "o~t 1~ ~ 350,000. ~oto: 1tIl (lot Appliceblo) ~icateo ~e "o ~c, or ~cr au"~^a10n d" ~ot ~.t ~1 ~ueh ·- ~Ie-- -_-o- ~ource: "tio"t ~cience rowdatton ~ 20 ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~

progress in the first `0 years or the 20th century; however, on ~;-e eve of the Second Wor] d War, American universities possessed no.hi-`g like the "rear preeminence as centers of scientific research that they hare attained in the 40 years since. it could be fa' r to say that the main institutional leadership provided by the United S tares in support of scientific research before World War II involved -he development of an extensive network of scientific research Laboratories in private ~ndust~, some of which were conducting research of very high quality. The mushrooming growth of scientific research within the U. S . university community in the postwar period has been financed primarily by a huge increase in federal expend) ~cures, in the fo ~~u o contracts and grants for specific research proj acts . Thus ~ most or the "demand" for scientific research has emanated from a highly centralized federal author) fly, although aggregate federal demand has been composed of a number of federal departments and agencies with distinctly separate missions and goals. On the supply side has been a highly dispersed and heterogeneous range of institutions, public and priorate, committed to both research and education, dependent increasingly upon the federal government for financial support, but otherwise dete rmined to maintain their independence and autonomy. There is one further element essence at to this picture. Ibe federal government did not confine ~ tself to generating a debased =or university research. On the contrary, it took a number of significant actions on the supply side, the end result of which was to enlarge vastly the pool of scientific competence as well as the physical equipment and facilities essential deco the performance of h~gh-quality research. The effects on the supply side of these actions, many of which peaked in the late 1960's and have declined drastically since, art~essential to an evaluation of the impact of federal R&D programs. After ache Second World tier, ache federal government undertook programs that increased vastly ache number of students who were able to pursue a higher education. The best known of these was ache G. I. Bill, which provided substantial financial support to all veterans who enrolled in college- level educational programs . ~ t was, wi~hou~c doubt, a momentous piece of legis ration, making educational opportunities available on a greatly expanded scale. At the same time, other postwar program-C expanded educational opportunities at the graduate and professional levels. Shortly after the War, the Atomic Energy Commission introduced fellowship programs for doctoral students in the sciences. lathe National Science Foundation introduced fellowship programs in i9S2 and has always devoted a substantial fraction of its budget to science education programs. The Hational Institutes of Health introduced ~craineeships as each new health institute was established (and had sponsored a training progress as. far back as 1930~. The National Defense Education Act, passed in 19S8 shortly after the launch of Sputnik, brought about a huge increase in federal support for education in science and - 21 -

In addition, the federal ,government played an indis?ensabie To is in the provision of infrastruct ural support. lit suppor, remade it possible for unitrersi~c~es Deco purchase increasingly expensive scientific equipment and advanced ins ~r,~menta~ion, central co th.e expansion of both research and teaching functions of the universit y scientific community. Access to such equipment has become a s ine qua non for research at the frontiers of science. Theories of the formation of the universe required, for their testing, immensely expensive astronomical observation equipment, and exploration of the fundamental nature of matter now requires access to parsec le accelerators involving capital costs of hundreds of m~11 ions of dollars . (The establishment of the European Laboratory for Particle Physics (CERISE) is evidence that some of the most sophisticated equipment for particle physics research is beyond the resources of even ~ single large Western European country. ~ Federal outlays for plant and equipment reached their peak in ache mid-1960' s and then declined dras~i cally, rising again ~ in real ~cerms) in the lace 1970 ' and then declining once more in ache early 1980's (see Table 10) . Federal expenditures, and the specific forms they took, had an additional benefit that appears to have been Screwy large. By s imultaneous ty providing funds for unifiers ity education and fo. the support of research within the university community, the federal go~rerr~ent strengthened the un~vers~cy commitment to research ~ a commitment ~hat, before World War II' ran a very poor second to -caching) and, at the same time, reinforced the linic between research and teaching. hat link, in Which graduate and professional training and basic research are conducted in the same organizational coneex. (departments and laboratories)' with advanced students participa~cing in research, firs t as apprentices but then in an increas ingot active and creative ra le. would appear to be one of the real s Lengths o f 17. S . arrangements . It has exploited a great potential co~npiementarity between research and Beaching; that is, under the appropriate set of circumstances, each may be performed better when *hey are done together. The combination of research and teaching has been carried much further in ache United States than elsewhere. In Europe and Japan, for example, a larger fraction of research is carried out in specialized research institutes, not connected directly with higher education, and in go~rernment-operated laboratories. The U. S. practice of combining research and teaching did not originate in the postwar period. R;a~cher, it goes back to the 1 ace 19th cannery, to the agricultural experiment stations that were, from the start, attached to the agricultural schools of the land- grant colleges . In Europe, by contrast, government- sponsored research stations, such as the distinguished British agricul~cural station at Roehamsted, were less likely to be tied to the educational process. Nevertheless, although the joining of research and teaching did not originate in the postwar period, it came to full strength ant fruition then in 'I arge measure as a result of federal financial support policies . - 22 -

TABLE 10 Federal Ou~clays for R&D Plant, 1960-1983 (dollars in millions) Yeat Current dollars S "3.8 539.1 555~ 67:~6 948.1 t,O77.4 1,047.8 792.7 723 8 657.0 J8.9 612~7 564.4 638.4 ?04.B 829.7 800.6 9CO.2 1,107.8 1.202.8 1.48t.7 1.606.7 .695.3 1.207.9 Constant 1972 do/lare' S 637.9 788.2 m.s 928.3 1,292.O t,436.9 ,361.5 997.9 879.4 76~5 635~9 640.8 564-4 611.2 628 8 613.1 607.t 568.5 736.9 73S.8 833.3 822.B B9t.l 550~4 19" 1961 1962 1963 t964 1965 1966 1 967 1968 1969 1970 197t lg72 1 973 74 ~ 975 t9J6 1977 lg78 t97g 1980 t981 1 982 tests) t983 ( - t.) ' GNP tax ye. ~t ~ orates ~ to ~ - =~ - t - ~~ to ,~ ,~~sn~a SOURCE NO Son f~C~ F—~1 fund t~ ~ Ewe cold Oev deem ~ Detailed ~—cut rho—~ In Yean tg67~ 1983, -1 ga2. I "~

The benefits flowing from the U. S. combination of research and teaching appear to haste been j eopardized by the decline in Federal support for R&D plant and equipment at unifiers ities . The age and a continued deterioration in the quality of such facilities could teed to a toss of the substantial gains derived from the close integration of graduate training and high. level research that has distinguished the U. S . system. The well-equipped European research laboratories 9 such as CERN, or the national research laboratories such as the Max Planck Insti.tu~ces in West Germany' do not train beginning research personnel, ~ factor chat has contributed to a relative shortage of qualified, high- petrel European researchers O lathe toss of university access to ins~cr~menta~cion of the highest quality in America, or We concentration o f such ns trumentation in a reran small number o ~ locations, would be a serious threat deco the excellent system -~or training research scientistsl~hat has been built up in the t~'nie_ed S fates in the postwar years . The practice of pro~ridirtg large amounts of research funding from a centralized source, but making it available on a competitive basis to a highly dispersed, decentralized system of institutional performers, seems to have owed much of its success Deco another distinct~e~re feature of the UO S. R&D experience. That feature is robe great diversity of American higher education institutions combined Hi ~h their relative ease of access to a Larger fraction of the population than has been tip ical of other industrial countries . Those institutions emerged out of the rich culture of a wide rang. of ~ ~igran~c groups . That diversity encouraged experimentation with different modes of organization, exploi~ced a wide range of social pulses, and stimulated a number of different responses deco specific social concerns. It offered the opportunity for exploiting the very different potential strengths of social and ind~'rid~1 diversity rather than imposing a single model, as in the French form of centralized government, or in the British system, where higher education reflected and suffered from ache narrowing and debilitating effects of a rigid class system. Consider the combination in ache United States, of strong public and prince institutions. lithe state urtiversi~cies have depended for their financial support upon providing useful services co state constituencies, a system that has had its most tangible benefits (although far from the only ones) in the agricultural sector, where federal funding has long played a maj or rote as well. Private universities, on the other hand, have not been tied similarly to local constituencies and have been less constrained in pursuing research of no obvious or immediate utilitarian value. Also, they may have been more flexible in their ability Deco respond to novel or changing circ',mstances. It is interesting to notice that, during the Second World War, the great majority of the universities holding the largest OSRD contracts for research were private universities. Indeed, of the top ten universities witch the largest OSRD research contracts during the far, all--with the soLe exception of the 20 University of California at Berlceley--were priorate institutions. - 24

This brief discuss ton leads to trio ques tions chat need to be posed serious ly at this workshop, even though there is no rigorous methodology for answering them: How much does the illustrious quality of scientific research at ache major U. S. universities owe to the federal R&D support system? To what extent is the present preeminence of U. S ~ academic science itself one of the maj or benef'ts--perhaps cue major benef~t--of that postwar support sys tem? CONCLIJI)ING COMMENTS S ince this is the opening paper 0 f a two - day workshop, i t could be presumptuous to try to offer a set of conclusions to the participants. Instead, this section will raise some questions char seem to fall naturally out of this presentation. To what extent has the growth of ache federal R&D system in the pos cwar years induced ache growth of priorate R&D spending? Intuiti~rely, the federal role would seem to have been the strongest in basic research' where successful completion of research should provide a stimulus to further applied research and product development, but where priorate research expenditures are ~ ikely to be limited because of the strong uncertainties, long-defer~ed bene'_ts, and d~fficui~ies of ensuring use of the results inherent in basic research O Certainly, the growth ire federal e~cgendi tures raises the potential prof~cability of much research conducted by priorate industry and, thus, may hare induced a large amount of priorate expenditures. Lee relevant counterquestion is, of course, what would have been the size and ache composition of private R6`D spending had the federal. government not undertaken tics postwar R&D programs ? Surely, some portions would have been undertaken by private industry (which was already financing some of its own basic research before the Second World War); therefore, there music have been some substitution effects. But, how large were the possible substitution effects as compared to the complementarily effects? What can be said about the relative size of those effects with respect to specific industries (or produce groups) and with respect to the separate components of basic research, applied research, and development? To what extent could the federal government have s simulated greater private Red) spending through different procurement practices? Chat o ther consequences might have flowed from such prac~cic~s ? These are extremely difficult questions, but they are inherent in the question posed for this workshop: How can we measure the benefits of federal R&D expenditures ? Another. in~cerac~cion between federal and priorate R&D expendi~cures nay have been s ignificane . A large, well - financed federal R&D program increased ache demand for a limited supply of professional engineers and sc ientis ts . Al though Chat demand mus ~ have raised ache race of entry and, eventually, ache supply of such trained persons, it · 25

also raised their wages and salaries and increased the cost of pri Larceny financed R&D . Such effects may have been sizable in those industry sectors where Mali R&D was concentrated heavily, especially aircta£t and electrical equipment. A more tenuous and conj ectura1 interaction is how employment in federally supported programs way have affected che subsequen~c effectiveness of professional personnel who lacer shifted to civilian employers ~ for example, with the decline of NASA expendi~cures slicer the completion of the Apollo program). Were engineers, who had worked on programs where small performance improvements were sought almost regardless o f cost, effective designers of products for civilian markets where cost considerations and sertsitsvity to nuances of consumer preferences were likely to be far more significant? Have large federally supported " crash" programs shaped the approach and influenced the (perhaps implicit) tradeoffs of UO S. engineers and product designers in ways Chat are dysfunctional for highly competitive consumer markets, such as consumer electronics? Al though these thoughts are only speculative, they are afforded some plausibility by comparisons with other countries. Japan and Jest Germany have had very small military budgets since the end of 'world 'par II, and, in both countries, the ratios of civilian R&D to GNP have been substantially higher than in the Unlaced Scares for man' years. Although classification systems among countries are so different as Go render comparisons extremely difficult, U. S. federal R&D expenditures appear co include a far smaller share of activities Chat could be regarded as 't advancement o f knowledge " than is inc tuded in government R&~) expenditures for Japan, West Germany, Prance, or the tenured Kingdom. lose actual allocation of federal R&D resources within the postwar structure was, and is, dominated overwhelmingly by national security considerations. Although it is possible to examine the economic effects of such an al-location, tics basic rationale is extraeconomic in nature . Indeed, what the numbers sugges t is that Ache Uni ted States is supporting a vast military establishment that, in turn, provides a defense umbrella for other advanced industrial co~cries. Obviously, ache reasons for this are not inherent in the federal R&D system that this paper has examined, but are the product of strategic and geopolitical considerations. Whether we have the balance about right is impossible to determine in purely economic terms. What the figures ~ suggest, however is that, Bless it can be sham that military Rho has been generating truly gigantic benefits to the ci~rttian sector (and that probably cannot be showy, the the oppor,:unity costs to the U.S. economy have been very high. Me economic growth of the United States in the past few decades, by comparison with Japan, Germany, and other advanced indus~crial countries, does not support the presumption that large expenditures on military R&D have improved tisis nation' s reta~civa economic performance. - 26 -

NOTES Alar) REFERENCES 1. These measurement problems haunt us again, in somewhat al ~e red form, in attempting to measure the contribution or R&D expend) flares to productivity growth. See Z~ri Griliches . " Issues . in Assess ing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth, " Bell Jour``al of Economics, Vol . tO, ~ Spring t979 ~ . A. Hunter Dupree. Science In the Federal Government. Cambridge, USA Harvard University Press, 1957, 2. 66. 3 . Tb id., chapter I1J . During the years of debate, the Treasury inves ted the Smithsonian monies in state bonds, which depreciated substan~cial: y in value by the time the institution was see up . Edward D. Eddy. Colleges of Our Land and Time. New York: Harper and Broachers, 1956, p. 172. For data on expenditures for organized engineering and resting at U. S . educa~cional ins~citutions in 1924 and 1925, see "A S tudy of Supplemen~car~r Activities of Engineering Colleges--Organizing Research, Graduate Courses, Extension Courses, and Other Services. " In Report of The Invesciga-:on of Engineering Educarion, 1923-1929. SOc~e-7 For ~ he Promotion of Engineering Education, L930, pp. 328-3i. The ~ oral funding for the :8 insti~cu~ions Listed was $1. 3 million. The 38 engineering experiInen~c s cations at the land- grant institutions in 1938 had a topical budget of j ust over 61 million from state and local sources (see National Resources Committee. Research--A National Resource, Volume I. Washington, OC: U. S. Government Prin~cing; Office, 1938, p. :90. 5 . Dupree, op . cit ., pp . 350- S8 . 6. Federal Funds for Research, De~relopmer:~, and Other Scien~cific Ac~civicies, Fiscal Years 2965, 1966., 1967, Volume XV. NSF 6 6 - 25 . Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 19 6 6, p . 149. Due to changes in definition and reporting, Red) figures before 1953 are not strictly comparable with lacer figures. These numbers are reproduced in the Appendix. John R. S~eelman. Science and Public Policy: A Program for the Nation. Washington, OC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947, Isolde I, p. 10. 8. The $50 million es~cimate of university research spending was broken down into the following sources: Appropriation by states, Department of $7, 283, 000 Agricul ~cure, experiment s cations Estimate of other state appropriations spent for research - 27 7, 000, 000

Federal grants to univers tries for agricul Aural . . . experiment S tat' ons 4, 99S, 009 Sales and other income for research 2, 000, COO General endowment income 17,OOO,OOO Grants from foundations for research 8, OOO, OOO Special gifts from outside the foundations 4. CO,O . 000 Total ~ approximate ~ $ SO, OOO, OCO See Maxi anal Resources Committee O Research. HA Narionai Resource. . Washington, OC: U. S. Government Prancing Office, :938, Volume I, p. t78. 9. For a careful, although now somewhat dated, treatment of these contr~ct,'=l. issues, see Clarence OarhofO Government Cones acting and Technological Change. Washington, OC: The Brookings Institution, L968. :0. in recent years, federal intramural laboratories haste perfected only about Ll or L2 percent of total R&I:). See National Science Board. Science Ir.d~carors ~ 982. Washington, OC: ~J O S . Government Printing Office, L983, p. 236. tiO Ibid.9 p. 192. 12. Ibid., p. 52. 3 . Congressional Budget Office. Federal Support for R&D and Innovate on. April 1984, p . S3 . In addition to expenditures of the Depar~cmen~c of Defense, defense includes expenditures for mil~&cary programs in the Depar~cment of Energy. :4. Even though, as was seen earlier, only 3 . 2 percent of federal defense R&D in L982 we. for basic research, that Seas 3 . 2 percent of ~ very large number, and basic research supported by military agencies has been a significant component of federally supported basic research.. The Office of Na~ral Research teas been a supporter of teas ic research for 40 years, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has played ~ crucial role in the early stages of research progress that, eventually, had direct and substantial civilian app 1ications. Currently, DARPA is a maj or source of financial support for artificial intelligence research. The agency has long been involved deep ly in research on computer technology and played a decisive role in the emergence of time- sharing . 15 . Science and Tec.5nology Data Book. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1985, p. 3. For a listing of C's by location and sponsoring agency, along with federal obligations for 1981, see National Science Board. Science Indicators - 28 -

:982. Washington, OC: U. S. Government Printing Of ~ice, ~ 983, p. 310. 16 . Vannevar Bush. Sc i once, The Er~diess Frontier. 'Washington, - OC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1945. 17 . Ist speaking of engineering education, one authority wrote, as tate as 1930: "lathe Germans, whose life depends upon technical pre-eminence have little to fear of the competition frogs our universities, but that of our industrial research laboratories is gi~rsug them serious concern. " William E. Wicicenden. "A Comparative Study of Engineering Education in the United States and Europe . '' I n Repore of the Investigation or Engineering Education, 1923-1929. Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, 19 30, p . 1009 . :8 . There was, of course, one wholly exogenous supply- side phenomenon of maj or significance to ache growth in the pool of scientific talent: the intellectual diaspora triggered by Hitler and the Nazi onslaught. For some aspects of the benefits that flowed co I. S . science from that Diaspora, see The Incellece?ual Migration: Europe and America, 2930-1960 Edited by Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn. Cambridge, MA: The Belicnap Press o Harvard University Press, 1969; In particular, see Chapter ~ by Charles Weiner, "A New Site for Dacha Seminar: lDhe Refugees and American Physics in the Thirties. " Weiner stresses the antecedent growing sophistication of U. S . physics in the period immediately before the arrival of the refugee physicists and argues echoic this was an essen~cia1 precondition to the spectacular intellectual progress ~cha~c followed. On the role played by refugees in the United States in the growing receipt of Nobel Prizes, see Harriet Zs~cicerman. The Scientific Elite: Nobel laureates in the ZJnited Scares. New York: The Free Press, 1977 19. D. Kennedy. "Government Policies and ache Cost of Doing Research, " Science, Vol. 227, (February 1, 1985), pp. 4~80-84. 20. The uni~rersi~cies, ranked by size of OSRD contracts, were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the California Institute of Technology, Harvard University, Columbia Uni~rers~;y, ache University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, ache University of Chicago, George Washington University, Princeton University, and ache University of Pennsylvania. See J~es Phinney Baxter III. Scientists Aga~se Time. Boston: Little, Brown and Co ., 1946, pp . 456- 57 . The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard did fundamental work in the improvement of radar capability. Col''=hia, Chicago, and Berkeley made maj or contributions to research on uncomic energy that culminated in the atomic bomb. . See National Science Board. Science Indicarors 1980. Washington, DC: U. S . Government Printing Office, 1981, pp. 214-15. - 29 -

APPEND IX The Appendix consists of three tables that give the federal outlays for research, development ~ and R&D plant from 1940 to 1985 . Al ~hou~,h all the tables are from the same series, they are not comparable across Cables. Me National Science Foundation updates ache series continually, and, as a result, the later tables are not strictly comparable with the earlier ones. In the table for ache years L940 through 1973, ache numbers before L9 5 3 are not directly comparable with those after . This is due to changes in reporting. Some of the changes are noted i n the footnotes So the cable. In addition, in 1958, NSF broadened the definition of " development, '' but, apparently, the numbers were corrected back to L4S3 only. - 30 -

~ ABLE A- 1 Federal Expenditures for Research, Development, and R&D Plant, by Agency, Fiscal Years 1940-1973 (dollars in millions) Ad. - eV Total, all ~c' - ....... .. Coon - ~' D~r~m~ of Agriculture .... .... D - ~~'m~t of Commerce ... O oonm~t of '—em-, Total . . . _. . . O~m~n of the ^,m~g ......... Oooartav~ of the Nevy .......... Marmot of Arc ^~r forced ........ - sync" ~I~Ct, Pro'cete ^9 - Aft . . . De~ - We FUN............ Moo Aoenct - C ..... "m~ of - ~1 - , Education. ane w - ~~-~ ~~t of - e l~ter~or .......... fit of T,.~oo"~'on. ....... Otne? A - - c' - Atomic Energy Comm'smo~' .. ...... £nv~rortm~te1 Protection ^ - rich . .... Future' Av'st~on A~c' ... "ertnaner, 6noir.~, O'nrkt. ........ - ~'ono' ^~ro~t~es an. Soace Osiris, "cteont . MatiO~I Sci~cc Fou~~tior' ......... OttiCe of Economic Oc~oonunit, ...... Ottice of Sci~titic R~ret, ales O~oo. mart V - crew ^@mi~inre~on............ ^11 OtHer ^~C'ff .............. TOtJI, - ' Yacht............... cm~t of ^'rie~lture ......... Doom of Commerce ......... O~nm~ of Offers Tot l ....... 0~t of Ott- Argo ... C~m~t of tl`. ~~, . ....... C,~rtm~ of tn. Air Forc" ........ sumac" Arch Bode Alec comet - ~ - fun - C............ Dd - - Arc. - ............... 0~ of - _lt.R, l~catio-, W - ~~ - —t n~~r~o~ . . . . . . . . . . In ~ T~ar~u~orutlon~........ 0~. Foci_ AtO - - ·~_" C ~;—On.......... £nuirort~te' ~tloa ~ ...... ~f~re1^~ ^ ~ Y ........... - ~ e~~ o~ ......... Not10~ ^~t~ ~ ~ ~b~ ont . ~Ond Sc~ce fou~tloa ........ OHice ot Bconomte O oo~un~ ...... O - ke of "~ffic .~rcn ~ O~o. .. ~ .. . . . . . . . V - erem ~m.~ - r - loa............ All0 ~ ^ ~ei" .............. ~ t__ ~ ~ ~ _. ~- ~ 1940 ~ 19~, t942 ~- 761~ 1979 ~ 280.3 . 29.1 28.3 29.9 3.3 3.1 3.2 26.4 t43~7 21 t.1 3.8 t8.7 ~ ~a.4 3.9 2~.6 Sa.9 8.7 1 00.& 83.8 ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... . r ~ _ 2~8 3~0 3~2 7~9 g.!l 1 3~5 2.2 . 2.6 5.0 ....... .. , ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 5.3 t 1.0 ....... ....... ....... 2.4 2.4 3.4 _ . 1963 3,tO1.0 1 . S4.9 t ~ 2.45~.8 743.3 678.3 1 ,033.2 ....... ....... ....... 115.2 3S.: ....... 3~.1 ....... ..... 0. ....... 78.e 2., ....... ....... 4.e 13.. , t943 T190 1- so2.4rt377.2 38.7 321 5.2 S.2 395.1 ~.1 ·49.G tllt.3 130.S 1?~.6 1 t 5.6 ~ 10.2 ....... · ...... ' ....... ....... ii_ . 3.2 3.3 t 7.0 20.? ....... ....... ...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 77.D 730.Q 9.8 1 8.4 ....... ....... ....... ....... 52.2 86.8 ....... ....... 12.2 32.6 1954 _ 3,t~t.9 _ ~ _ 55.4 ·a.e 2.~.2 815.' ~., t ,006.8 ....... ....... ....... 62.5 39.1 ....... ~.1 ....... ....... . _ ..... - .5 3.6 ....... ...... 5.1 ·t.e — 31 — 1955 3.:308.3 72.0 9.9 2.4538.2 1 .012.S 591.9 982.2 ....... 43.3 ....... 70.2 3t.9 ....... - ~.d ....... ....... ....... 73.8 ..5 ....... ....... 1S.3 21 .1 1945 1 ssa., 33.7 5.0 513.D . 13~.D 200 136.0 ....... ....... ....... l . 1 _ __ 3.4 18.Q ....... ....... ....~.. ....... 859.0 24.t ....... ...... 114.5 ....... 20.0 1~ _. 917.8 1 _ __,. 36.e 5.0 418.G . . 114.0 t83.0 121 .0 . . . ~ . . . ....... ....... . _ . 3-5 . 17.0 ....... ....... ...... ....... 3~.0 23-' ....... ...... . ".e ....... 11.0 1 19" 1 l 1 3.4 - ~ 1 I - . ~ 1 s7.71 1 20.4 1 1 2,6~.0 1 1 782.41 1 635.S 1 1 ~ a78.9 1 ~ · I 1 21.91 ~ 1 t_ 1 se.21 35~7 1 ---- 1 1 474.0 1 1 l . ~ . . . ~ . 1 ---- -1 71at 1 '641 - --'- 1 ----1 ~ 1 '°41 1967 4, - ~.9 s7.a ·9.e =~?1 .4 "2.1 70.e 1 .t8O.G ....... 24.& ....... 143.5 · 423 ....... c - -5 ....... .... _ . ~ ....... 7e,t 30 ....... ....... s.4 15.3 ·94, s—.9 _ - .2 4.e 558.8 tOO.O 293.e 157.O ....... ....... ....... 10.1 20.3 ...... 37.7 ....... ....... 1~.0 3!52 ....... ....... 5.6 ....... 10.2 1 -19~8 1 1949 1 1960 I aa.~| so.e' 8.2 1 12.5. 592.2 1 696 4 ~ . . _ 1 - - I-- -- t,6.4 1 136.. 1 287.5 ~ 332.9 t - . l 1 22S.9 1 · - - · - ~ . . . . . 1- ---- I·--.... 1 - 1 t=~- ~ ~ ~ 22.1, 1 2t.9 1 3'41 "~t 1 1---1 1 1 1 1 107 5 1 t96. 1' · ' ' · · ' 1' ' ' · · · ' 1 ~ -'-- 1 -- --1 1 - - - 1 ^ - 1 I 3?.S 1 "~7 1 I I I ~ ~ ~ - - - - 1 ~ I ~ 1 91'--'-- 1---- 1-- ---1 1 ·'a1 12.8 53.0 12.O 6!52.3 . . , t23.1 1 31~.8 1 218:4 1 -- - 1 - --- . . ..... .. - 1 39.6 ~ 32.1 2:21.4 54.S 1 19S~ 1 3959 1 1~G ~ 1961 ~ 1 1 ~990.~ 5,806.4 T 7.~44-21 9.287.0 tl1.8tl24.7l '3~41 147-7 ,7.SI 30., 1 33.11 35.5 :~.4S6~.2 1 4,183.3 1 5,653.8 1 6,618.t 1 ·13.5 1 890.9 1 1,108.9 ~ 1,306.0 1 s - ., 1 t,o".7 1 '.3~e ~ 1.631.s t,894.0 1 2,t34.5 1 2,978.0 ~ 3.00.s 1 3.0 1 U3.9 ~ 226.3 ~ 20dS.6 1 396 1 4231 4°°1 339 1- - - 1 ---1'''''''1 '','''' r.~.3~ 252.81 s2~.21 374.. 1 ~ 9 1 t2a2 1 es3 1 t5.1 ~ ,,,,,,' , -! · .-- ^t ' ''''' | ~OJ.2 | 8?7.t | se5~ | t ,tt l.t ~ _ . ~ ~ ,, I I 1 ~a2 1 2,.. 1 41 ~ 1 52.9 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ - ~ · - . - a ~ ~ | ~ ~ . ~ ~ . 1 3962 1 14S a5 1 ~o' o 1 ·~. 1 a371 "-'1 "~1 82,7 1 -- - 1 - - 1- - -- 1 1 1 . -- -- 1 12~. 1 16~e 1 te.e 33.81 22~1 25.4 (con tinue d2 1 23.1 22.S

I.\BLE A- 1 (continued) o.O...',~ 0. ^ - icul`~ . Dot of Comma . . . Oooo^~ of Oxfam, to—I. . 0~0~m~" ~ ~ Army . . . 0~ ~ the H~, . . . O~"m - ' ~ - e ^~, Fog. Ed R_d~ Solaces ERIC ... . ... .... O~rt~i.. Fug..... 0~ - Tacit ........ O_m~ of With, Educatlon arm W - Berg .......... Oooc~m~t of trio I meteor 0~ of 7~at~o - . . Otrl. ^~e1~1 Stogie £~r" CO - ATOM.... Ilnwironment.' ~rotec~ioa ~cY laurel ^~ - lion Aback...... n Or Oi~ric~ . . . Stroll ^.ro~'ice ~ 5~:o ^amin' - - Lion . . . . . . . . ~io~ Sei~ foun~t~or.... Oftice ot Eco~.e Oooo~u- OHlee of Sei~titic R~rc~ aaa ~oom~' V~reas ^~mtalnre'Ion...... ^10 Ott, - Ao~e' - ........ ~ 1 . ·r~ O~_—o~ 7~c~c~~ ss o~ 1~, .~0~8 ·—~ d ~O-C ·~—s~ ~ O—~ce d t~s~ct~— ce s~ O~_t t—~r~w .^ tr O~o~_~ o C~, t~o f~r. ~ ~: a~ t~ J.~ Coac' G_e torr_~ ~r~ra. t~c Tr~r, O~rt~t °~ — ~v. s~—~ of ~.ta~v R&O o- to ~~ t3~ ~—~- t~~ v_ 1 9S3- a~ w "n tr~ - ~r~t so~oo - ~ d ~I. t~t. a~ ~t~. ~ - ~ t~ _ ~ IlS. c~~ar~~——— 1~ Oco_ ~ —~~—_ _c~o ~ ~ ~~. ot~r s~ ~o ~ 0~_ ^to~e S~_n ~e~ _ Oet~ Co_e _~. 1962 16.~.8 1 1SS.1 . 47 5 : 6.lt1 2.0 1 .2~3~~ 1,S 1.0 . . :t.1172.9 1 92.9 t~t .7 . ....... 512.t ' 86.1 ....... ~ .2S4.3 . .... ~ S3.? ....... I .257.0 tt2.11 ....... .... ~ .. 38-s 34.3 _ .~ 1 l~ . t 2.Ot 2.1 t4, 707.0 . . _ _. . . . 172.5 183.4 70.4 ".5 B.80.8 7.51 7.0 . t,421.2 1 413.6 1.57S.8 t ?2J..2 3,S39.1 3,981.1 ...... ... ... t. ~ 21.1 300.4 ~.9 632.4 "3.4 1 O2.? 1 02.D ....... ........ 1 33S.d t.~.s ~ ~ o~ 74., 74.a ....... ....... 2.552.3 4,1 71.0 1 53.1 202.9 ..... ~. ~ ....... .... .: 33.1 34. t 315.5 39., 196S 4.~.J ~ . 205.7 as.e s.~.e . 1 ,428.e 1 ,41 9.4 3,~.e .0... ~ 9.9 "~.7 . . t:]t.9 118,J . . . O ~ ~ . 1 ,520.0 ....... 96.4 .... ~ .. 5.092.9 206.3 4.2 ....... 40.4 52.5 _ . _ 1 91 - 1 967 l l 1 dS,017~9 1 6 J!59. 1 . . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ 2~ ! 269.8 7t .2 80.5 s.~.e ,,~.' . ~ . 1, - 5.2 t n..o 1,~.6 ~ 94t.9 3.19~.2 3.~.0 ....... ... ~ 9.9 9.9 496.7 SO?.3 .. ~ ~ . _ 879.4 1 ,075.O 1 49.3 1 ~el., 1.~.7 2~.3 1 . - t.9 ~ .~.9 ....~.. ....... ...~... ...~... ....... ..... 5~933.0 5,428.? 240.9 29~.8 49.4 SS.7 . ..... .. 0 42.2 ".4 7?.2 19 - 1969 , t ?.00.9 t6;347.11 . . · . . . . . I 2#.2 1 283.8 81.8 1 78.4 8,163.6 ~ 7, - ~.4 1 s3~.sT-t sos.a 2 tO4.1 ~ 2 108.8 3,987.8 ~ 3~26.3 .~~o~- 1 -- -'' 7.21 9.2 525.0 1 51 &.2 1 ,289.1 1 1 .220.0 195. t ~ 2134.2 219.1 ~ 20S.0 1 ,564.3 1 t ,dS".O - - - - - -1 - ~ - - - -1 - ~ ... ...! ....... · '2~.7 1 ~,251.7 333.e 1 342.3 41.0 1 7? ------ 1-- 49.4 i S4.O 80.2 ~ 105.1 19tO 1 1911 . 1 _ 1 5.~:J5.11 1'S.992.4 l ~ 29..1 31aJ 127.9 ~ 122.9 ?.~7.9 ~ t.706.0 r...,..l ..~. 2,t 72.4 1 2.~77.9 3'lS°~] 1 3.025.6 I- --- 1--- --- 5~9~} 4.5 "~.0 1 527.S 12153.~| 1,~26 159.8 185.1 282~S 1 477J 1,ISt8.O I t,~.. 1 70.2 1 101.O 1 - -! -...... 1 - - - - - 1 - - ~ ~ ~ 1 3~153~1 1 3~1.9 1 32~-1 1 373.9 1 7931 10.1 1 - - - · -1 · · - - - 1 s'.71 s7.9 1 t33.3i 1711.6 E=~ - I t 1 1972 ~ I i he.7~3.s ~ , . . I 1 1 1 3~0~, 1 1 s? ~ 1 ~ s2Je.a I ,, _ 1 1 2.00.1 1 2.547.9 39197.J ~ 1 ---- 1 1 18. 1 4~3.8 ~ - - .520.0 225.8 =7.2 I t,S8O.0 I 1 ·~?.7 1 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - ~ 3.181.0 "03 124.D I ~- 1 ~ Tt.e I 1 2215.D 1 360.t 2~., , 8.01.5 2.0~.2 2.~2.5 3~7t .e "-2 ·93.1 _ . I l.t6O.. 267. ~ 334.3 1 t,519.5 ~ 180.? .... ~ . O ~ O · 3,t92.4 - 9.9 113.5 J1.e 280.9 . rno .~ o' a$1~. ~_ _~ _e - ~ .~ .. - _rt_~_ `~_ St~— at~ 1963, O _t~_ ~un~ ·~—~~UO~ _~1~. =~~ 0~. ~ 6~_ '"~ o~v c~ S~'v ~ - ~ ·o t'~ _r ' - 2. - ~$ _ - ev. ~ t~ ~ ol _ ~ ~ ~ '0 ~ l"~ t. - ~O - Ct f,0 - o'~ aa0 lu~8. tb—~ ~ ~~—t—~ ~ ·o t~ _ ~ ~#. 50~.C£t ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ d ·~ ~ i - ~ ·o '~' Source: Pedemt ~8 for Rese~-~, Devet~n~t, ~ Other Sc*en~tific Activi - s, Piscet Zeers 19725 l872, ~ 29?3. Washington9 DCo National Scies~ce Fo''-Hation, 1972, VoL'ro" "I, pp. 178-179. — 3Z

TAB=: A- 2 ~ contin--ed) _~ , ~ ;~.C, A~0 S.J'OS'iSIO. ~ I'?2 ~ ·~' ~ I''. ~ I'?, ~ I'7. ~ ''or ~ gore ~ lo?' ~ `~e '__ 07~1. ACt - CIIS 1 1 1 1 t · 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ' ~ 1 1 1 1 1 limit 11~' CI~ISS10. ·~----.o t loot te.2~' - At ~~1 10~61 ~~' .~1 ~JA1 ~61 1~1 .0. £~8C' RS4J' C Ot,ELt - - lt1 4 - tat · I libel ~At 1.J25~01 2~.o.. '.59,o7' 'dial .~81 - 41 .~51 mat ~. t - Stan "Outtalk ICE - ! . I 133~81 I.~7t It2.Z ~ tlJe.1 dote.' "~01 312~' leant' l - -t' ,.lo?1 "10` libel EVIL 11~41 ~~' tonal .061 .~81 ~0~11 lot low loll |~1 Isl1!~21 1.20-21 3~0051 l^~'olBl ,*~9031 3~]oll tol'Ootl ~o8tlobt ,*lt.cOI te—5e,' .~031 .70~' ~?1 .00-40 . - otl .7.O!r' n8~.l 806~. - ~621 ~O'oll 't~ol Ill'Al 1~' "oil tO.lt "o't tO7~.t lllatl l~to.O t.~`J' ~O'..l "2-' sa Oz l ,.0~' - . ~ - at a,.' a,.' n,. 1 ~at ''a1 ~~1 "a "oil .2081 650't '7oOI 10~' ~az.~' ~.'l s:~' 130.61 I.60'O ts.03 41-11 50021 t\~-l' lS.Je'O 108~01 1043eOI t,Ool| 1011~11 111'oSt 21BoOI "Iloli' ~ ~ l l ~ I t l l 1~11~10& ~ tt 01 ~ C:18~. t t ~ dC5.C' I - ~., ".ol~tJIICS ~ S..C! 40~1- c J l~tS - &L SCIt - C' BO - OAftOR ·-~1 I - CLEA. ~fClLA1~' Ctl_tSSI~ ·-o t 0~. I Ct ~ ICt3~RSC 0~ tl" ~ f' ~ ~ ~ —tt.ARS ~O.t. tit.~'tOI' oc o oe. ~o- t ALL "Iff. BC..Clll aco.~.oe~o~ee. ~ ° I~—IC&115 _81' L~~ ~-—0~0~90 .o ~. "of a~le~) 1~0~' - ~' I" aCe.C' 0e ~, ~onIst" sIo "Y ~tlSt l' SUtH Ilt tl-' tlAa. Source O Federal F~ds for Research ~d DeveJopmene, Fisca] Years 2980, 1981 and 1982. Uashington, DC: National Science Founda~cion, 1972, ~Jolume X=, pp. 163-164. ° 34

TABLE A-3 Federal Outlays for Research, Development, and R&D Plant, by Agency, Fiscal Years 197S-1985 (dollars in millions) t@~e ~ ~_et~ ,9D5~—~ 21 ,~.9 =,~—9 2S,'=.9 ","' .0 =.6'S.8 ~,"~.9 ~,7~.8 ~.9~.. ",7~.9 =~207 J—~_tel "" I, -~ "a.` "a.a m.a m .~.5 an 7~.5 as -#.a -9.' 9~9., ~t~ "o - - tom Bat ~ 1~2 1" lIl l/l a/. ad 1~' t.7 2~1 2~2 104 3/ - - - - ~9 1~~ 1~2 t.5 ~6 te5 _ ~lc~ I ~ JO 232~8 247~41 294~6 318~J~ ~1~2 ~tl~6 4245~9 4~1 —~4 60a 4~9teS Coo——UL" ~s. ~ ~,~ 95~6 1~2 1;30o2 1~9 15C.6 t74~2 199~0 219.J 220~4 243~0 20~9 . S"t ~ COO' ~ i,/ JJ.1 J/4 3065 32e. '5~6 J/1 ·' J/1 l/1 J/` JJI _ - b - 4t 22~2 23~6 J/1 ~JI J/` J/1 - ~0 ~ o0 36~8 Je'. 1 46~7 t.~~ ~ ~~ ~/~~ ~~ J~ J/~1 31~1 J/1 J/1 JJ~ l/1 l/1 ror~t - -~ - 72.S 90., 92.5 86.7 lOS.? ta).d 101.8 tt6.0 ltt.1 106.2 104.5 |~ ^~t~ ~o "~"o l/1 l/1 l~ l/4 l/1 l" - ,.a 5.8 7.9 7.6 "tto~1 "r~S~ uh~ .1 — o ~ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ 0" OS. "~tt: O.@p ~ ~t lIl JtA l" J/1 ~ `" 6~9 4~` 4.t 7~2 7~1 0" ·£, ~pnette - l/1 l/1 J/1 l/` .5 a~ .' .9 ~J t.o t.O S"t"~_1 "pn~ ~ 1.2 2.0 'l~ ''` ''` '/` 7.S 7.0 7.6 a.2 sOS ~_t ·t Co_~, - ~ 224.` 2n.' 230.Z 272.7 307.' ~O.C 346.a 2ff.5 ,'5.2 359.2 2a7.' - ~ ~ .r S~ 47.2 49.' ~.t %.0 C4.s 77.1 "" M.d 94.0 96., tas.o "~ Oa~ ~ `~ ~' l".t 1MeS 132~6 '"~7 190-1 210eC 209~0 174~1 222~0 2"o, 165~2 O~Pe_~ 49.7 49.a 52.5 46.9 52.2 n.s 53~5 ua 19.2 10.5 14.1 ~t ·r -~, -~ 9,'63.5 9,445.5 10,,08.0 10,935.4 t1,=~.' 1,,~.' 15,,93.0 18.482.9 Z1,J"c5 26,030., 31,472.9 ~r_s of t_ ~ 2.0~.0 1.949.C 2~195~0 2~464~, 2~2 2~8S2~9 'e123~7 's~t4" ,.1~18eS 4~257aJ 4~821~6 —- ~. 0, ~—~ ,.126~' '.t20-t ~aS82~` ~e919~4 ~e925~4 4eS0109 4etl609 Se—.7 6~023~5 7,0ar., 8~8SBo8 l~rt_~ ~ ~ ~ H~ ~,%7.C ~,~5.: ~.~.2 ~.9~.9 4,UB.0 ~,=~.6 ~,?~.6 8,—.1 9,~0.9 t~,~~.~ 14~11.8 "t~ ~ S%~9 =7~5 610~!; 5!i5~1 1Bt4~2 981.4 1,160.0 1,420.0 1'J17., 2,J.12.1 ,.`i2S.8 "~0 ~ t^S ~4._ - '.o 2.2 t.2 2.9 J~ l/1 l/1 lIl J/1 J/1 '/` ~"p of ,_t ~ ~ 25.d 20.9 t6.5 23.9 28.' 40.d ~S.7 ".8 45., 5S.8 55.9 De~re_e of ~d~etos. Tee" ·/1 ·/ l/1 ·/` 156.5 120.9 111.8 150.' 111.5 154.7 126.' "prs_It of ~r=, to~ '/~ - J/1 ,.~.1 4,413.0 4.9S6.8 S.660.2 6,125.9 S.~85.4 S,6it.9 5.9t1.8 6.027.' - t °r =~' M - c ~ - 1~, to~ 2,168.2 2,C15.0 2,622.2 '.~.2 J/1 l/1 J/1 H1 "A J/1 J/1 . ~ ~ ~ ~W ~," ~ 114.1 145.1 16~t.2 tt9.9 J/& J/` J" VI l/1 J" ~tI "t'1 ~"tu" of ~tts 82.8 - ~ 59.7 ~.a l" Jt~1 J" l/1 l" J/1 l/1 ""o~ S - ~e of ~" 1.W..4 2,tl8.4 2,105.0 2,Sl".l J/1 l/1 JI. lIl - JtA l/1 'll ome. 0! - ~s~ . - 53.' %.8 ~o.' 25~ J/1 l/1 l" J" l/1 l/1 J/d 2~.8 22S.0 260.1 2132.6 ~. JId ~tA - l/1 JJI lIl l/` De" of 51" · ~_ ~. ~1 ·/ ll ·/1 ll 3.172.7 3,554.1 3,997.5 4,052.t 4,t111.6 4,567.2 4,9Z3.7 "eebo1. ~ U,_ ~ ~t" Uts ~ ~tI JtI J/1 l/1 t - .7 216.t 251 .t - 2.0 269.J ~97.6 ~9.1 "tl~ S~titnt~ of ~ - 2/d l/1 J/1 J/1 2.1t'" '.~., ',"2.2 ,.~S.O ',"2.9 '.~.0 4,~9.8 ~ ~ l/1 J/. l/1 l/. n..s ~x.a '".' -5.0 "s" ao.6 a~.a - " of ~ - ~ ~r~ ~o_~, to~ -,? 60.~ ·.0 59.~ 74.~ ff.8 S~.~ n.o ~o.s ~~~s ~~.s - ~' of ~ J - tertor. to~ 260.0 ~t9.? ~A ,,9.9 406.' ·~5 416.9 '94.9 432.7 U,.t 3r5.5 of ~ =.7 113.7 t~.? t".2 12t.4 t~.8 1~.0 t~.2 102.0 ~.6 75.0 C oloctc~ ~ 9S.2 tl 5.7 112.2 128O7 1U.2 145.2 t68.2 150.1 11t.~ 171.6 t 54~4 Ot~r {llt~^~F ~#-1 ~Oo~ ~o~ t=-O 1~-7 t.~-S 1~-7 1~-7 t~-~ 1~.6 14602 - - r_' of ~tio.. ~b~ 43.8 '9~9 ~.7 ~.5 45.9 45.' 26.1 %.` Z7.6 54.7 30.2 0" oti ~11~ ~"t' ~e ~ S"e16~" . ~o2 35~2 - ".C ~te1 35.5 35.1- 19.2 30.4 21t.1 2,., 22.6 0~ J - "o. 4~. 4.t ~ `~2 Ce' 40" 10.2 "9 Ce2 6eS 9" 706 tlo~r_t of ~~or, tot~1 25.4 =.S ~lot g7~6 1~2 t~1 Cte6 29~4 416~8 lJ~1 19 11~ ot ~t. - , tbt" za c Z7.0 44.' 57.5 ,.2 2.2 ,.a t.5 t.S t.C '.1 4_~ tor ~t~t'1 ~t ~.4 25.4 4~.J S4~6 J/l 2/1 l/1 J~ Ul J~ J/1 O~r ~ - t .2 1.6 2.' 2~ '.2 2.2 1 a 1.S 1 .S t.C t ot —~ ·t ~pr~t~, ~tal ''9.2 ~5.7 363.5 =., m.4 391.0 432.' ~ 0.0 28Z.' 462.4 499.0 - ~ 1~t~ ~ 113.? - 114.d 102.J tOO.2 111" 109.7 12S.9 110.9 99.S 213.0 276.0 - ~ Up_, ~ 26.8 42.9 53.0 S2.9 ".9 53.4 ~.1 U.S 32.S ~S.O 48.S de~ "~ ~ 51.' ".S St., 62.4 56.0 63.S 55.0 25.d 18.5 22.0 18.S "t'1 ~, 2same Set t, "~. 36.2 ~.8 49.5 6a.S S'.6 60.' 60.a 60.2 S,.1 St.J 60~8 '~ - _ 2r~ ~ 60.9 ~a.2 S2.1 52.5 SO.S Se.9 61.9 69.e 36.S 71.8 51.' 0~r ~pr - ~_ S0.6 =.t ".e .0.s ..9 ~S.2 ... Sl.o ".2 S2.e .~.a - " ot ~ ~. - ~ 1.7 '.J ,.0 9.9 t.. 10.9 10.8 13.6 1S.6 16.? 28.t ~ 35 — (continued)

TABLE A- 3 ~ continued) I, . 1g~75 1976 l9T' Hera '979 leas 19~n 19~2 ' - lat~. '9~0 19115 Our ~t ~ for Detent': Afloat l/1 l~ l/6 ~/~ —a 114.~ 166ol lilacs 225~2 ~5~4 doom ".r. ~ ~ clout ~ 2~246~6 2~55,o? ll`. '/` '/` '/` '/~. '/` ''t~ ''` Aft ~.,~o~t" H.t - troll ~, 2t8~6 2diSe6 283~0 312c5 ~o9 - ? ~c, ~o2 512.S 25107 m.2 It'd "ghetto. ~ SO-SO. ~ ,.26dieS jo649.O ~s"9~1 ~o4320t ,.39S.2 ~od0S-7 '.tOSoS ~s252~9 201S46~2 ~e600~' ,.477o, tatio~ - ~~ Samoa 600.4 669.' 6Mo7 tMo6 O4oC "0~2 90Se0 t.OlSe1 994~7 410143~di 10378~! Jack - r ~to" Cal 58.S t6.9 la,.J 131.7 145" 182.8 216.0 2~.6 20.0 198o7 1?9.1 '.~ It - ~8 97~0 lO9eS 912~8 12,o9 12,ot ,~o6 10~' l4Oot t64o7 l~t6~2 218e, .= ~. ~0 llt.9 1~0~0 109~0 1SO.S 1~101 ll~J,eS 205~7 16602 lJo5~' t62oO t79~' —I~ ~ ?~° ~ or sso r~r Coo——tt~ ~—toe t~1 T~ 1961-760 y n ~g~g ~ ~ ns~t "ar La ~cl~ Co~a a"~o~ ~e to UB. -~ ~od" # - to~ ~c~t~ t_reb - ~oe of t" Sct~ ~ ~l~t~ ~t - ~ tor t~1 ~s 197~. dJ ~"—~ to~ "o—rst1~. ~"—~ of t"—t~e ~—"at1" ~t - "os tor ~ ~ 1~1~0. -~ ~ed~ ~~~~c~ of ~—~ t_~ ~~—,, ~ 3~t~tt~ ~pr~ Se~e . ~ ~ ~~r Coo——stv ~~—tor ~ce: ar 1977_1979. t~ ~ ot s" ~e _~ "r~. _ ~ stat~t1~1 ",or~ _rr"e tor n 1sso. · S~_ _—t "_ t~ 850~000 Jote' J~ (Bot 4~1~) ~ s~t t" ~ oe ~ ~oa "t - t ~t ~ ~ la tJ - s ~r. Source: Federa] Funds for Research and Developmene, F:sca' Years 1983, 1984, and 1985 . Uashington, DC: Nat~onal Science Foundation , 19 84, Vo l~e }~XIIT, pp. 168-169. .. 36 -

Next: Federal Support of Applied Research: A Review of the United States Experience »
Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $95.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!