NEWS OF THE WEEK The third successful proposal puts the basic annual allotments to divisions from ACS (and additional allotments based on membership) on an adjustable basis, to increase proportionately as ACS dues in crease. The fourth amendment changes the date, from Feb. 1 to Feb. 15, by which local sections must submit their annual reports to the executive director. The petition that was not adopted—it was referred to the Council Policy Com mittee—had proposed to create two cat egories of director-at-large: industrial and nonindustrial. Its purpose was to help ensure better representation of in dustrial chemists on the ACS Board. However, councilors apparently heeded a plea from the Committee on Nomina tions & Elections not to restrict the com mittee in choosing the most qualified candidates for an election. The commit tee agreed with the intent of the petition but thought a bylaw restriction was not a desirable way to accomplish it. Ernest Carpenter
From Chicago
Forum probes forces changing basic research Basic research has begun to feel the im pact of the forces of change affecting U.S. R&D policy. Indeed, those forces bid to alter the way basic research, in cluding chemical research, is conduct ed in the U.S. A view of how those changes are playing out was presented last week at
Correction C&EN erroneously reported last week that academic R&D spending fell in 1992 (C&EN, Aug. 23, page 44). Final figures are not yet avail able from the National Science Foundation, but C&EN estimates spending on R&D at colleges and universities actually rose 5% in the 1992 academic year to reach $18.4 bil lion. After adjusting for inflation, C&EN estimates academic R&D spending rose 2% in 1992. C&EN es timates chemistry R&D spending at universities rose 4% to $700 million for the 1992 academic year—as it re ported last week. The correct graph of total academic R&D spending is shown at right 10
AUGUST 30,1993 C&EN
the American Chemical Society meet ing. Representatives of the science community probed the issues in a sym posium titled Forging New Links: In dustry, Academia, and the Future of American Research. The forces at work cited by several symposium participants include the end of the Cold War, which has shifted the national focus away from issues of security to those of U.S. competitive ness and quality of life; downsizing at the Department of Defense, which fi nances more than half of all federally funded R&D in the U.S.; and downsiz ing by industry, which is perceived as endangering corporate basic research. For example, the new national goal for competitiveness resembles past na tional goals for security, says physicist Peter Eisenberger of the Princeton Materials Institute at Princeton Univer sity. The difference is that the federal government is no longer both the hinder and the customer. Under the Clinton Administration, basic research will continue to be tied more closely to national needs. But "it doesn't make sense for universities to be solving competitiveness [problems]," Eisenberger adds. Universities are a national asset for basic research, and do ing research at universities is cost-ef fective because of the graduate student pool. However, the role of the university shouldn't change to meet short-term goals of competitiveness, he emphasizes. What's needed, Eisenberger stresses, are appropriate changes in the relations among universities, government, and industry that will allow universities to $ Billions 20 Γ
1978
80
82
84
86
88
90
Note: Data for academic years, a C&EN estimate. Source: National Science Foundation
92a
meet the new challenges but preserve their strength. University research, he says, including strategically driven re search, must focus on curiosity and the long term. University-industry alliances are not a major way to solve competitiveness problems either, notes Don I. Phillips, executive director of the GovernmentUniversity-Industry Research Roundtable at the National Academy of Sci ences. Instead, such alliances should be viewed as new and creative ways to generate research, Phillips says. As it is, the effectiveness of such alli ances is often limited by unrealistic and unmatched expectations, he cautions. Short-term economic benefits are some times expected: The federal govern ment may expect short-term gains in industrial competitiveness, for exam ple, or states may want to create or save jobs. Disagreements over intellec tual property rights—who gets royal ties, licenses, and large-scale financial gains—can cause delays and are the primary reason these partnerships fall apart, Phillips points out. The complexity of university-indus try relations within these alliances needs to be addressed, Phillips stresses. Ways must be found to establish com munications and provide constant in teraction between researchers on the two sides of an alliance. However, as industry moves away from corporate basic research, the fed eral government is not a viable option for filling the void that is left, warns Marye Anne Fox, professor of chemis try at the University of Texas, Austin. But there are alternatives that could fill the gap, Fox notes—for example, read ing the literature to look for new re search carried out in other countries. That won't help U.S. competitiveness, however, she points out. On the other hand, she says, indus try could expand its contacts with uni versities. It could be more aggressive in pursuing contracts, establishing indus trial consortia (which some economists say will be important), or buying tech nology from companies started by en trepreneurs. If these approaches are to be taken, Fox notes, student training will need to change. "If basic research disappears as a corporate entity, then it's likely that we will be turning out too many Ph.D.s at too many institutions," she warns. Mairin Brennan
