Government
Defense Department boosts research funding New research office woos academic scientists as basic research budget rises to $316 million in fiscal 1982; role of Pentagon could be issue A small but significant element of defense dogma today claims that the Department of Defense during the entire 1970's grossly neglected basic academic research. The reasons are mixed, but the figures do show a flatness that security analysts see as threatening in a world stabilized by technologically intense weapons sys tems. But during the Carter Adminis tration, the pendulum began swinging the other way. The combination of Defense Secretary Harold Brown and White House science adviser Frank Press leaned convincingly on the Of fice of Management & Budget, and the result was $100 million incre ments in research and development contract money to universities. However, the downbeat psychology of the lean years still weighs on most research universities around the country. Acknowledging that, Brown established in the Pentagon last year a new Research Office to carry the message that DOD once again was in the basic research business. Brown appointed as head of that office for mer Bell Telephone Laboratories low-temperature physicist George Gamota with orders to get the word out. The 42-year-old Gamota will be leaving DOD to take an academic job in the Midwest this summer, but the office will stay in business. For, Gamota says, the Pentagon means business. Military funding has helped 20 scientists win Nobel Prizes over the past decade (despite the cut backs) and he wants to build on the tradition. This fiscal year (1981), DOD spending for basic research in uni versities stands at $258 million, up from almost $230 million in fiscal 1980. For the coming fiscal year, the Reagan Administration is asking Congress for $316 million. On top of 14
C&EN April 27, 1981
that, Gamota is pressing industry to shunt some of its approximately $700 million in independent research and development funds to university laboratories. Industry has not done much of that in the past. Gamota counsels the academic skeptics to be patient. The money is coming. "We're not spreading these increases around like butter," he says. "It's going initially to the critical areas we consider most important. We're giving investigators latitude to develop programs, but we're not spreading the funding across the board." Of even further delight, Gamota says the military once again will be funding students with fellowships. About 200 such fellowships, with funding tied to the research contract, will take effect by next year. Right now, the Office of Research's priorities can't be said to lie heavily in the direction of chemistry, although Gamota says a leap in chemical war fare defense research can be expected in the coming fiscal year. Areas slated for the biggest increases in fiscal 1982 over 1981 are mechanics and energy conversion ($88.3 million, up 11.2%), electronics ($75.6 million, up 16.2%), biological and medical sciences ($64.8 million, up 12.9%), and behavioral
Defense funds for R&D in universities up steeply $ Millions 8001
600
400
200
nil Μ ι ι ι ι l M î ι liHMl 1965 66
68
70
72 74 Fiscal
76
78
Note: Figures for 1980-82 are new Reagan Administration proposals.
80
82
and social sciences ($22.8 million, up 10.6%). For chemistry, funding is slated at $57.7 million, up 9.1%. The figures are for both inhouse and con tracted basic research. "The real problem we're facing," says Gamota, "is that of technical manpower. Defense expenditures will be dependent on the increasing manpower to carry out development of new systems. The defense estab lishment is dependent on higher ed ucation in this country, and we can't work in a vacuum." Last summer, Gamota's office began circulating a brochure pre pared at the Army's Harry Diamond Laboratories. It described various programs and opportunities within the DOD research establishment and veritably wooed the academic com munity into returning to the fold. One particular paragraph of cajolement went like this: "We find that all too often good ideas are never brought to DOD's at tention because the researcher does not see an immediate 'military ap plication.' This is unfortunate, since the extramural researcher is not usually the person who should make this determination. We in DOD are interested in all good ideas, and it is the responsibility of the scientific program managers, not the re searchers, to decide on the applica bility of a particular research project. The foremost criterion in selecting a proposal is the quality of its scientific content." So the atmosphere seems set. And Congress seems ready to help. Early in April, the Association of American Universities sent several witnesses before the House Armed Services Committee to testify in favor of increased Pentagon funding for basic research. The group was led by former National Science Foundation director Richard C. Atkinson, who is now chancellor of the University of California, San Diego. "Given the immense security needs that face the nation," said Atkinson, "DOD's underinvestment in basic research is alarming. It indicates a lack of foresight and thoughtfulness in planning for the defense needs of the country. The drop in basic re search obligations by the Department of Defense together with the drop in
basic research expenditures by in dustry cannot help but have a devas tating effect on our national defense capabilities. " Atkinson was joined by Robert L. Sproull, president of the University of Rochester; James J. Brophy, vice president for research at the Univer sity of Utah; Edward J. Bloustein, president of Rutgers; and John Wright, president of the University of Alabama, Huntsville. All bemoaned such current academic research pathologies as the growing disinterest of students in science and technology, outmoded laboratory facilities and instruments, and the lack of overall manpower resources to meet the de fense and nondefense technological needs of the country. But the issue of whether more technology really adds to security or even more weapons reliability, prob lems over restriction of research findings, and signs of growing unrest on campuses over the Administra tion's defense policies could make the current drive for more Pentagon funding for basic research an in flammable issue. A new American Association for the Advancement of Science committee on science, arms control, and national security should take the issue to a dimension the university professors were unable to during their testimony. "It looks like a return to the 1950's when much of the expansion of uni versities was based on military sup port for research," warns linguist and frequent Pentagon critic Noam Chomsky of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It is not so much a problem for universities as it is for the country. Do we want to live in a country where the military deter mines what is to be done? We'd be a much more healthy society if the Pentagon had no role whatsoever in supporting research in universi ties." John Crowley, director of federal relations for science research at the Association of American Universities, says the issue of DOD support for basic research isn't a simple black and white matter. "If this one hearing is being perceived as the universities running to DOD for money," he says, "it is a misperception. I am genuinely worried for this nation if we are still doing research 10 years from now at the present level. If this continues, many of our best brains will be going abroad. We aren't taking the view that everything should be done on campus. We need radical rethinking and new research support linkages." Wil Lepkowski, Washington
Federal Alert— new legislation
Manufacture of Crystal Resonators Spectroscopic Standards
This C&EN report highlights legislation introduced between March 10 and March 17. Senate and House bills are listed under subject area by number, primary sponsor, and committee(s) to which referred. SENATE Business. S. 682—Riegle (D.-Mich.). Places moratorium on Federal Trade Commission's shared monopoly cases; referred to Judi ciary. Energy. S. 668—Jackson (D.-Wash.). Creates Energy Mobilization Board to expe dite approval of priority energy projects; referred to Energy & Natural Resources. S. 669—Jackson (D.-Wash.). Requires ac celerated exploration, development of geothermal steam resources on federal lands; referred to Energy & Natural Resources. Environment. S. 681—Stafford (R.-Vt.). Establishes system of response, compen sation, and liability for oil spill damage and removal costs; referred to Environment & Public Works. S. 723—Tower (R.-Tex.). Directs EPA to test air in border areas, determine percentage of pollutants emanating from foreign sources, and eliminate them from consideration when determining attainment or nonattainment of ambient air quality standards; referred to Foreign Relations. Research. S. 685—Heflin (D.-Ala.). Estab lishes National Laser Institute to coordinate laser and particle-beam R&D; referred to Commerce, Science & Transportation. S. 731—Glenn (D.-Ohio). Authorizes fiveyear, $750 million energy storage tech nologies RD&D program; referred to Gov ernmental Affairs. HOUSE Health. H.R. 2537—Foley (D.-Wash.). Pro hibits, until Dec. 31, 1982, FDA from taking any action to ban use of saccharin; referred to Energy & Commerce. Nuciear. H.R. 2512—Ertel (D.-Pa.). Estab lishes national nuclear property damages insurance program, financed with premiums paid by all utilities operating reactors; fund would pay for 75% of uninsured cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island damaged re actor; referred to Energy & Commerce, In terior & Insular Affairs. Productivity. H.R. 2412—Lundine (D.-N.Y.). Establishes National Productivity Council to determine which federal programs hinder or encourage improved productivity; referred to Banking, Finance & Urban Affairs. Research. H.R. 2561—Wampler (R.-Va.). Extends, redefines USDA's agricultural re search programs, referred to Agriculture. Trade. H.R. 2439—Barnes (D.-Md). Re stricts export of goods which have been found to be hazardous to public health; re ferred to Foreign Affairs.
Drug Manufacture Meets U.S.P. and other Pharmacopoeias
Produced by : Metallgesellschaft AG Operating Division Technical Processes Section Lithium Reuterweg 14 D 6000 Frankfurt a. M. 1 Tel. (0611) 159-1 Telex 04 1225-0-mgfd
United States Representatives : The Ore & Chemical Corporation 605, Third Avenue New York, Ν. Υ 10016
Tel. (212)949-1600 Telex 23 42 62 (RCA), 422 681 (ITT)
April 27, 1981 C&EN
15
