Government
Schmitt: NSF could manage needs ors of learning mathematics and sci ence, especially at a time w h e n youths are stimulated mainly by vi sual presentations of science? The debates over all these issues are about to begin in earnest. Right now no one, apparently, can pre dict the outcome. Wil Lepkowski, Washington
Funding mechanism: little effect on research As part of its wide-ranging inquiry into the role of the federal govern ment in supporting basic and ap plied research, the House Science Policy Task Force wanted to know what impact various funding mech anisms had on research productivi ty and performance. So it asked the General Accounting Office to find out. The answer is, "Not much." In its study, GAO looked at two issues—whether particular funding mechanisms play a role in helping universities improve program qual ity; and whether funding mecha nisms have different effects on re search performance. For the second issue, GAO considered two funding mechanisms—individual project grants that support individual re searchers doing specific research, and center grants that support broad coherent programs and cover facil ities, equipment, and scientific and administrative personnel. 12
March 31, 1986 C&EN
In addressing the first issue, GAO focused on how five universities were able to improve substantially at least one research program after the federal government largely elim inated special financial assistance for program improvement in the early 1970s. Selected for study were Emory University's department of microbiology and i m m u n o l o g y , Georgia Institute of Technology's school of chemical engineering, the University of Alabama's (Birming ham) department of physiology and biophysics, the University of Geor gia's department of botany, and the University of Texas' department of physics. Selection was based on their im provement in rankings of program quality in two surveys of the scien tific community. One was carried out by the American Council of Ed ucation in 1969 and the other by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils in 1982. The GAO study was limited to the Southeast because of budget constraints. GAO found that seed funding from either government or private sources was a prerequisite to pro gram improvement in all the de partments. Even more important, however, was an explicit commit ment from the university to improve its program primarily through the recruitment of highly qualified fac ulty members, renovation of re search space, and purchase of criti cal equipment. As to funding mechanisms, GAO found that they play different roles at different stages. It doesn't really matter where the money comes from as long as it's there. After the in vestment of seed money in the five departments, faculty members com peted successfully in their fields, and the primary source of support became the individual project mech anism. However, the universities' commitment to absorb the increased faculty costs, when the science de velopment grants or other seed mon ey ended, helped sustain the highquality programs and allowed the departments time to become pre dominantly self-supporting, accord ing to GAO. To address the second issue, GAO compared five departments that rely primarily on individual project
grants for support with five centers in the same fields that rely on cen ter grants. For each one, GAO ex amined four key factors that affect research performance—coverage of research requirements, stability of financial and resource support, the influence of funding mechanisms on the flexibility to pursue new and different categories of research, and administrative burden. Experience with individual project or center awards did not appear to be a significant factor affecting sci entists' responses to questions con cerning adequacy of equipment and facilities, according to GAO. Instead, perceptions of problems in those areas differed by field of science. Of the scientists surveyed, 78Ψο said that the quality of their research facilities had increased or stayed the same since 1970. However, scien tists in the fields of cell biology, mathematics, and space sciences said the quality of their facilities had gone downhill. Scientists in all fields, except mathematics, expressed concern over equipment. More than half said that needed equipment is hard to obtain. Problems with funding for tech nicians cut across all fields and funding mechanisms, with more than 80% of the scientists saying it was difficult to hire and retain needed technicians. However, those problems were attributed mainly to industrial competition and current salary structures for technicians at different universities. A separate funding mechanism for graduate student support was advocated by almost 90% of the scientists. The funding mechanism had the most impact on stability of research funding. According to GAO, 50% of the department scientists said that gaps in funding, which sometimes translated into the breakup of re search teams and the loss of trained professional technicians, was a prob lem. Just over 25% of the center scientists said funding gaps were a problem. GAO also found that sci entists working in research centers were much more likely than their department counterparts to be en gaged in research that bridged two or more fields, to propose research in new areas, and to propose work with industrial applications. D
