Federal Support of Basic Research Is Centered in the Universities Basic Research
Research and Development Performers (Millions of Dollars)
Sources of Funds Used
Federal Government
Federal Government
$2,090 238
Industry
$6,310" 4,560
Industry
OIT'
Colleges and universities6 Other nonprofit institutions0 Total
Colleges & Universities Federal Construction of Proper0 Research Centers
$600 330
$450 112
55 25
Total
$200' 80
$9,650 849
90 12
4,705
32 24
230 180
2 12
90 60
155 108
1 7
230 180 65 48 $2,090 238
$10,870* 403
$950 583
$450 112
$380" 152
$14,740 1,488
14 16
74 27
6 39
3 8
3 10
100
Percent distribution, R&D performance
Per Cent Distribution R&D Sources
Other Nonprofit Institutions
8*
100%
° Includes agricultural experiment stations. b This amount includes funds from the Federal Government for research centers administered by organizations under contract with federal agencies. c Data include state and local government funds. Note: All data are based on reports by the performers. Source: National Science Foundation
NAS Drafts Guidelines for Research Support Proposals aimed at federal support for basic research in universities Present ground rules on federal support of basic research in the universities are fundamentally sound. But there still are room and need for improving the system by all parties concerned—the Federal Government, the schools, and the research worker. That is the gist of a comprehensive 98-page report, "Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning, ,, prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and made public last week. The report— which painstakingly traces the evolution of the Federal Government's system of science support in the universities—goes on to propose guidelines which the academy hopes will enable the system to function more harmoniously and effectively. In the guidelines NAS tries to reconcile the need for freedom for scientific research with the Government's important need to account for the use of public funds. The report credits American science's attainment of its current position of world leadership in no small measure to "enlightened policies of several federal agencies committed to furtherance of basic research." Specifically, NAS attributes this attainment to the current emphasis on support by research project grants and by fixed-price research contracts, coupled with the widespread use of
scientific advisory panels to select projects for support on the basis of scientific merit. NAS believes this general approach should remain the backbone of federal policy in support of basic research in science in universities. Bookkeeping. The thing that disturbs many university research scientists, and the one that largely prompted the NAS study, is the growing movement by some federal agencies and members of Congress toward saddling the scientist with additional bookkeeping chores and restrictions on the use of grant funds. The primary driving force behind this movement is the House Government Operations Committee's Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee (the so-called Fountain Committee) through its influence on the National Institutes of Health. The scientists complain that a lot of this accounting is pointless and just hampers them in their research. NAS agrees. "We discern a recent trend toward unnecessary restriction of scientific freedom and increases in bookkeeping chores of scientists in both grants and contracts," it says in its report. NAS believes this trend will result in "lower returns on the investment of public funds in science. For example, current regulations on grants restrict the transfer of funds from one budgetary item to another.
This is all right in dealing with such things as compensation of senior personnel, travel, and improvement of facilities. But NAS feels that the investigator should be given "maximum latitude in spending other grant moneys for the stated purpose of the grants as he sees fit." The academy points out that, ordinarily, there is such a lag between the time the proposal is prepared and the time the funds are finally spent, that tactics change, new equipment becomes available, and so forth. NAS believes the investigator should be free to shift funds between budget items of equipment and expendable supplies. To safeguard against misuse of grant funds, the investigator would be required to explain substantial shifts when he applies for renewal or continuation of the grant. At the very least, NAS urges that the present limit (usually $500) on the purchase of initially unspecified equipment should be increased in some proportion to the total value of the grant. This would spare the investigator much wasteful paperwork to get approval or refusals. "Accounting for part-time service of principal investigators and other academic personnel in projects supported by research grants or contracts —whether or not such service is paid MAR.
23,
1964
C&EN
27
for with grant funds—must be realistically related to the input of professional effort on the project," NAS says. Accounting for research effort in terms of time input—that is, in days and hours—is, in NAS's opinion, "unrealistic" and can lead to fiscal policies that "fail to make allowances for the nature of scientific research." It recommends that accounting for effort of professional people on a grant or contract be in terms of some fraction of the total effort applied by the individual to his university duties. Red Tape. University administration, too, can defeat the basic purpose of federal grants or contracts for project research by their policies. For example, they can do so, NAS says, by imposing unnecessary bureaucratic controls and red tape on investigators or by neglecting the investigator's problems in dealing with federal agencies. NAS urges "a more consistent policy of cooperation between university administrators and the faculty engaged in federally sponsored research." According to the report, it should be university administration's job to: • Define clearly the mutual responsibilities and authority of the administration and the investigator under grants and contracts.
sciences, primarily takes the form of scientific research. New Support. While strongly endorsing the project grant-contract system of federal support for basic research, NAS feels that "auxiliary" types of support are also needed. It recommends three types: institutional, or general research grants related to existing project grants; grants for "junior" scientists; and a different kind of program for "weaker" schools. Both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health already make so-called institutional research grants, but in NAS's opinion, on too modest a scale. It feels these grants should be strengthened and broadened in purpose to "overcome serious imbalances created in the universities by the growth of existing project research support and to meet the need for initial support of new projects." Junior scientists on university faculties find it difficult to get support for independent research, NAS points out. Under its proposed plan, the Government would give modest grants to these scientists for individual research on the basis of a general outline of their research interests, backed up by
letters of endorsement from senior scientists personally acquainted with the work of the applicants. NAS thinks the grantee should be free to pursue "such researches as appear most fruitful to him" in the broad area defined in the application. Some truly original ideas and discoveries have come down from young scientists, NAS points out. So "we cannot afford to tie them down to narrowly defined research objectives." The reasoning behind NAS's third proposal—that for a selective program of essentially development grants which would be available to some "weaker" institutions—is to help increase the number of strong educational institutions which will be needed in the future to fill our burgeoning requirements for scientific and technical manpower. The report cautions that this type of support shouldn't be used until the details of how it would work have been fully studied. The report urges that the current emphasis on large programs and laboratories must not lead to a loss of emphasis on individual scientists. "The individual investigator has been and will remain the source of strength in American sciences," NAS stresses.
• See that research proposals are reviewed by faculty personnel to ensure that they are consistent with the concept of the university. • Assist faculty personnel in preparing research proposals to be sure the wording will not place undo restrictions on the investigator's scientific freedom. • Educate its scientists in the responsibilities they assume when they use federal funds to support their research. • Explain to its faculty and particularly to its scientists what overhead funds and institutional grants are being spent for. • Relieve investigators of as much budgetary work as possible, while keeping him informed on essential fiscal requirements. The report urges university administrations in dealing with federal agencies to "assert more clearly and emphatically" the central purpose of American universities: the advanced education of American youth integrated with the scholarly activities of teachers, which, in the case of natural 28
C&EN
MAR.
2 3,
1964
Trinidad Ammonia Plant Expands Tanker takes on load of anhydrous ammonia at —28° F. from newly expanded plant of Federation Chemicals, Ltd., at Point Lisas, Trinidad. W. R. Grace & Co., principal stockholder in Federation Chemicals, has ammonia receiving stations at Wilmington, N.C., and Tampa, Fla., and plans to ship the product to points abroad as well. Grace owns 7 5 % of Carolina Nitrogen, which will convert ammonia received at Wilmington into other forms of nitrogen fertilizer (C&EN, Feb. 24, page 28). The company also owns a small share in Nitram Chemicals, Inc., a maker of ammonium nitrate fertilizers in Tampa. Federation Chemicals, whose basic raw material is local natural gas, can produce 235,000 tons per year of ammonia, 89,000 tons of ammonium sulfate, and 50,000 tons of urea.
BRIEFS General Foam Corp.'s directors have approved plans for Allied Chemical to acquire the company's assets and business (C&EN, Feb. 10, page 1 9 ) . The acquisition will, however, require approval of General Foam shareholders and the drawing up of a formal contract. Shareholders of General Foam would receive about one share of Allied stock for each four shares of General Foam.
Manufacturing Chemists' Association has issued a correction to its safety report (C&EN, March 16, page 2 8 ) . Total time lost as a result of or charged to injuries to employees of the reporting member companies was 429,358 days in 1963 as compared with 561,994 days in 1962.
Dow Chemical Co.'s board of directors declared a dividend of 45 cents per share on its common stock payable April 30 to stockholders of record March 18. Dow increased its dividend to 45 cents a share from 40 cents.
NEW FACILITIES Chemetron Corp.'s National Cylinder Gas division plans to increase the capacity of its air separation plant at Sharon, Pa., from 370 to 725 tons per day of high-purity oxygen and nitrogen. The expansion should be completed by the middle of 1965. The plant supplies gaseous oxygen by pipeline to Sharon Steel Corp.'s Roemer Works. Sharon Steel also uses the nitrogen for metal annealing.
Enjay Laboratories, a division of Esso Research and Engineering Co., is expanding its facilities at Linden, N.J., with a new plastics processing building. It will include 17,000 square feet of laboratory, office, and heavyduty-equipment space, which will double the size of the labs' polyolefin development and technical service laboratory at the Linden center. Initial concentration will be on developing new polyolefin film processes and products, new end uses, and new packaging machinery. The new facility will include environmental testing rooms for determining the effect of aging on packaging materials.
This is a Vibrating Ball Mill It outproduces a rotary mill 1500% to 3000% per unit volume It weighs 66% fewer pounds It takes 50% less floor space It takes 82% less initial ball charge (These percentages are all in your favor.) Allis-Chalmers unique Vibrating Ball Mill installs as a single unit . . . grinds nearly all types of materials wet or dry. For details, see your A-C representatives, or write to us at Milwaukee, Wisconsin 5 3 2 0 1 . A-1884
ALUS-
CHALMERS MAR. 2 3, 1964 C&EN
29
