Education and Research in American UniversitiesSome Candid Comments J. C. W A R N E R , Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pa.
With his ernment, President to speak
background in industry, govand education, former ACS J. C. Warner is well qualified on free intellectual inquiry
A M E R I C A IS SUPPORTING
applied
re-
search on a grand scale. Industry does because it is good business and serves the national welfare; and Government does because it is essential to t h e national security. I am convinced that basic research, good higher education, and scholarly-creative work is just as essential to our welfare and security. A publication of the National Science Foundation reports that separately budgeted university research has grown from approximately $20 million in 1940 to $206 million in 1954. Of the support in 1954, 70% originated in the Federal Government (C&EN, May 20, 1957, page 26 and July 29, page 1 8 ) . It is estimated that another $72 million was spent by universities on basic research in 1954, although this was not separately budgeted. Looking at this tenfold increase in separately budgeted university research, I suppose many people would say we are now supporting basic research in the universities on a grand scale. Perhaps we are, but is this substantial support really of the right kind to develop great centers of learning and to get the most new science for our money? A relatively small percentage of it is "unrestricted money" which can be used at the discretion of the university and its scholars to support such fundamental research as at the time is considered most important. With "unrestricted money," the scholar can b e supported in following up any interesting and potentially fruitful observation or idea even though it may very drastically change the specific nature of his research. 64
C&EN
DEC.
16,
1957
Most federal support for so-called basic research is contract research, really project research. This support is not primarily of the "unrestricted money" kind—in the first place, proposals outlining a fairly definite field of research must be submitted. If support is granted it usually is for too limited a period; progress reports must be submitted; and the support where granted cannot usually be used to follow up important observations and ideas if they lead very far afield from the original proposal. I do not believe that any board, committee, agency administrator, or the scholar himself can predict ahead of time the most fruitful direction a scholarly study will take. I don't want to complain too much because we must give great credit to the government agencies that have had the wisdom to fill the postwar vacuum in support of university research. We should be thankful for it in a period when "unrestricted money" has been so scarce in university budgets. Nevertheless, I believe the system has encouraged some undesirable changes in attitude on the part of many university administrations and scientists. Many university administrations, I fear, have not worked hard enough at finding "unrestricted money" and have rationalized their lack of effort by pointing to the ease of getting support for research from government agencies. Many of our scholars and potential scholars have been weaned away from pure science toward the applied; some have yielded to the temptation of building research empires through government and industrial contracts—they
cease being scientists and become administrators and promoters of team research directed toward fairly definite ends, or the group is engaged in filling in the gaps in some area of knowledge which is needed in application. Science Is Personal Useful as such work may be, it is no substitute for new generalizations, new ideas, and new comprehensive theories, which to me constitute the essence of new science. It seems to me that new science comes primarily as the result of individual intellectual effort, not project or team research. 1 have a feeling that in this postwar period we have not uncovered as much new science as we might expect from the substantial expenditures for research in our universities. Up until six years ago I was an active scientist and had research support from government agencies. I concluded that I would rather h-ave $10,000 in unrestricted funds annually to support any research I wanted to do, than to have $30,000 a year in government contracts. I have noted other changes in attitude and activities of university scientists—a restlessness which expresses itself in an epidemic of requests for leave to spend a semester or a year abroad, or in another institution, or in a government laboratory, or on a glamorous missile or satellite project operated under government contract. I would be the last to deny the advantage to the scientist and to his university of leaves at reasonable intervals to associate with other scientists with
"If more leading university scientists and engineers took the interest in good undergraduate teaching that Hildelike scholarly interests—the traditional sabbatical system of leaves should be supported. But this is something different; I can cite an example of a professor who has been on leave t h e equivalent of three academic years o u t of the past eight. W h e n w e add to this the growing tendency of scientists to run from committee meeting a n d symposium to committee meeting a n d symposium from coast to coast, even including missions and meetings abroad, I must conclude that many of our university scientists and engineers are living a life of intellectual chaos— and I don't believe we get much new science that way. It seems to m e that these incessant symposia, conferences, and briefing sessions could only be justified on t h e assumption that science is moving so fast that we can't wait for the presentation and exchange of research results at meetings or through publications. Scientists and university administrators are not wholly to blame for t h e many man-hours which go into meetings of advisory, evaluation, and selection committees and panels. Every agency of State and Federal Government, and our professional societies as well, assumes that a member of a university should always be available for such services. I think the universities and their people have been easy marks for this sort of assignment. I know the in-
b r a n d took in chemistry a n d Fermi took in physics, there would b e a tremendous improvement in education."
dustries also have pressures put on them to let their scientists, engineers, and other employees serve on committees and panels. But they seem to have it under better control—on the committees, panels, and such that I know about, I'd guess t h e university people outnumber the people from industry by five to one. W e got in the committee a n d panel habit during the war. But we must like it because it has b e e n growing. Finally, I would like to observe that in this postwar period fewer of our leading university scientists and engineers than formerly seem t o have a real interest in good teaching, especially at the undergraduate level. Possibly our universities are to blame for this by not placing proper emphasis on teaching interests and accomplishments in granting salary increases and promotions. There would b e a tremendous improvement in scientific and engineering education if a large fraction of our leading university scientists and engineers took the interest in good undergraduate teaching that
THE COVER: " N e w science comes p r i m a r i l y as t h e result o f individual intellectual e f f o r t , " J. C. W a r n e r says. Here, a W e s t i n g house scientist grows a crystal in w a t e r solution.
Fermi took at Chicago and Hildebrand took at Berkeley. All of this is really a plea for a return to some peace and quiet and order in our universities; for the university as a place where intellectual achievement is the principal goal of both students and faculty; for the university as a place where creative scientists, engineers, and other scholars can be supported in their search for new knowledge without placing restrictions on the direction their inquiries should take; for the university as a place w h e r e creative scholars take an interest in, and feel a responsibility for, teaching the young; for the university as a place where t h e energies of t h e creative scholar-teacher are not dissipated on the administration of large research projects; and for t h e university as a place when* first-rate salaries are paid to first-rate scholar-teachers. The university can become t h e sort of a place for which I plead if t h e university and its people will resist t h e diversion of their energies away from teaching and scholarly work, a n d if the university is reasonably provided with unrestricted resources. If this could b e brought about we would b e doing a much better job at education for the scientific and engineering professions, and w e would b e more effective in supplying t h e new knowledge and new science which serves as t h e lifeblood of applied research. DEC.
16,
1957
C&EN
65
