A N A LVTlC A L EDITORIAL
November 1970, Vol. 42, No. 13 Editor:
H E R B E R T A. LAITINEN
EDITORIAL HEADQUARTERS Washington, D.C. 20036 1155 Sixteenth St., N.W. Phone: 202-737-3337 Teletype: WA 23 M a n a g i n g Editor: John K. Cium Associate Editor: Virginia E. Stewart Assistant Editor: Alan J. Senzel E d i t o r i a l Assistant: Sylvia Crawford PRODUCTION STAFF Director of Design: Joseph Jacobs P r o d u c t i o n Manager: Bacil Guiley Associate P r o d u c t i o n Manager: Charlotte C. Sayre A r t Director: Norman W. Favin NEW YORKOFFICE 733 Third Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 212-867-3161 Associate Editor: Josephine M. Petruzzi PRODUCTION OFFICE,EASTON,PA. EDITORIAL Assistant Editor: Elizabeth R. Rufe
ADVISORYBOARD: Norman G. Anderson, Klaus Biemann, Lyman Craig, James 5. Fritz John Funkhouser Marcel Golay W a l 6 t E. Harris Joseph iordan W. W a n ; Meinke, R. A. bsteryoung, R. ‘L. Pecspk, Edwin P. Przyb lowicz, A. Lee Smith, Samuel M. Tuthi:, James D. Winefordoer
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Director of Publications, Richard L. Kenyon Director of Business Operations, Joseph H. Kuney Group Manager, Journals, John K. Crum Executiue Assistant to the Director of Publications, Rodney N. Hader Circulation Director, Herbert C. Spencer Assistant to the Director of Publications, William Q. Hull
REGIONAL EDITORIAL BUREAUS PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 19107, Philadelphia National Bank Building Broad & Chestnut Streets CHICAGO, Ill. 60603 36 South Wabash Ave. S A N FRANCISCO, Calif. 94104 57 Post St. LOS ANGELES, Calif. 90005 422 South Western Ave. HOUSTON, Texas 77002 514 Main Bldg. 1212 Main St. FRANKFURT/MAIN West Germany 32 Grosse Bockenheimehrasse LONDON, W. C. 2, England 27 John Adam St. TOKYO Japan Iikura Cintral Building, 4th Floor 12 Iikum Kata-machi, Azabu Minato-ku, Tokyo
Institutional vs. Individual Grants the past 25 years, a procedure has evolved for research funding to individual scientists through various federal agencies. The two essential elements of the procedure are that the proposed research originates with the scientist, not the agency, and that the proposals are rated by reviewers and panels drawn from outside the agency and picked on the basis of scientific competence. While it cannot be denied that this system has encouraged “grantsmanship” or opportunistic proposal writing, nevertheless the procedure has worked remarkably well, a t least for established scientists. Its main weakness has been the difficulty for young scientists to gain enough support a t that critical time in their careers when their creativity and ambition are a t high levels but when their talents are not yet fully recognized. Some granting agencies have taken special measures to create a specific category of starter grants to alleviate this problem. University administrators, in particular, have long advocated a system to substitute, a t least in part, for individual research grants, the larger grants a t the institutional level. The advantages of continuity and flexibility are rather obvious, to say nothing of the simplification of procedure from the viewpoint of the granting agencies. On the other hand, two important disadvantages come to mind. These are related to the two levels of decision involved in the institutional grant system. First, by what criteria are the amounts and distribution of institutional grants to be determined? Presumably geographic factors would be introduced in addition to past quality to guard against the rich getting richer, but a t the possible cost of achieving a uniform mediocrity. Second, what internal criteria are to be used in the distribution of funds within the institution? One does not need to accuse administrators of bias t o recognize that widely differing standards would doubtless be applied in various schools. There is one area, namely in encouraging interdisciplinary programs, in which institutional grants seem essential, to combat the highly structured departmentalizative tradition in most universities. I n summary, it would be a serious mistake apparently to abandon completely, or in large part, the highly successful system of individual grants. On the other hand, the leavening effect of a minority fraction of research funds to be allocated a t the discretion of institutional administrators could lead to an improvement in the overall distribution of funds and, particularly, in encouraging imaginative and innovative approaches to interdisciplinary research.
D
CRING
Adwrtising Management CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS CORP. (for Branch Offices,see page 139 A)
For submission of manuscripts, see
page 4 A .
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 42, NO. 13, NOVEMBER 1970
1473
