editorially speaking Pressures and Priorities Academic chemistry isn't what it used to be, and it probably will never be again. As described in this column last month ("Less Must Do More"), things are going to get worse before they get "better," and "better" may have little relationship to the way things were in the past. Academic chemistry departments are coming under intense pressures from a number of directions almost simultaneously: research funding is down, the demand for undergraduate chemistry service courses is projected to increase, and serious curricular reform is upon us. Consider the most recent budget agreement between the White House and Congress, which puts domestic spending in a no-growth position for the next three years. Science funding is an integral part of the domestic spending pmgram. Not only is the budget agreement a strong statement of our country's social priorities, under the new budget rules funds cannot be shifted among domestic, foreign, and defense programs. This means that if there were a "peace dividend" in defense funds, it could not be used to reinforce the nation's science base or to provide relief for other unmet domestic societal needs. Within the three budget areas--domestic, foreign, and defense-a "zerosum" game is to be played out. Thus, although the President's budget request to Congress for the 1992 fiscal year calls for healthy increases in most areas of science, Congress is not likely to treat science so generously at the expense of social programs and veterans'benefits. For individual academic scientists, a "no growth" budget is likely to mean a reduction of support as funds are spread more thinly to include new fields of research, such as mapping the human genome and high temperature superconductivity, that did not exist even a decade ago. Indeed, such difficulties are already manifest in some disciplines. For example, a n American Physical Society study last year of young physicists (those who had obtained their PhD's sin& 14kb, i n 175 i:.S., PhD-granting institutions shows that these facultv were experiencing srrious diflicultics m obtaining research suppok. Of thoie who submitted pmposals to begin their own research programs, only one in three was successful. And, of the successful proposals, only two out of five were financed at the requested level; the remainder received about half the funding they required. By contrast, in 1977, which was no "golden age" for science support, the great majority of young faculty members considered research support to be adequate. Just 13 years later, virtually no one thinks funding is adequate. Even though the National Science Foundation reports that it could double the number of proposals it supports with no loss in quality, it is highly unlikely that Congress will provide these kinds of funds. Further, the claim that the
United States faces a major shortage of scientists and engineers (the familiar "pipeline" problem) is unlikely to carry much weight in the upcoming budget debates since recent revelations to a congressional committee indicated that the shortfall predicted by the NSF never materialized and that the prediction was apparently based on a flawed study The need for more attention to the undergraduate chemistry curriculum as it pertains to service courses seems to be reflected in a recent demographic study by the U.S. Department of Education. A 13% increase in college enrollment is expected by the year 2002 based on the projected growth of the population of 18-24 year-olds. Thus, enrollment in "service coursesm-chemistrycourses required by other disciplines such as engineering, the life sciences, and the health professions-can be predicted to increase. Indeed, some recent data suggest that there has been a resurgence of interest in the health professions; for example, the number of applicants to medical school increased more than 20% between 1989 and 1991 and is expected to be up again this year. More pressure of this kind can also be expected from the increasing numbers of students being attracted to burgeoning disciplines such as material sciences and molecular biology, which require an understanding of chemical principles. The critical need to increase the general public's understanding and appreciation of science through meaningful courses for non-science majors is another source of pressure on the undergraduate curriculum. Chemistry departments and their faculty should be key participants, if not leaders, in these efforts, be they interdisciplinary or intradepartmental. The current initiatives for curricular reform in entrylevel science departments, including chemistry, some of which have been described on the pages of this Journal, will produce still another kind of pressure on chemistry departments. Such reform will probably require reallocation of resources and may require new resources in the form of personnel and facilities. Clearly, departments faced with hiring new faculty members (who may well encounter problems obtaining conventional research funding) and changing their posture toward undergraduate education will have to redefine their priorities. Resource allocation, ranging from the allocation of space through the allocation of financial support for faculty and graduate students, will have to be critically and thoughtfully scrutinized with respect to the job to be done, and new systems of reward will have to be established. JJL
Volume 69 Number 5 May 1992
345
