EDITORIAL
Research quality by the pound? While we ought to improve our universities, it is not a simple financing process
I
t should have been expected (and it has been) that once federal support of scientific research grew big, there would be fusses over fair shares. It is not at all surprising that there is pressure from members of Congress to get what appears to some to be more equitable distribution of research funds, state by state and area by area (C&EN, Aug. 1, page 11). It is desirable that federal funds be distributed equitably. But there should be no tolerance of belief that quality in a university or in scientific research can be bought by the pound or by any other unit in proportion to the price. Certainly a university with a great deal of money has a better chance of getting both the equipment and the men that are needed for outstanding research. And examples can be cited where a dramatic rise in standing has been brought about in a few years through skillful use of large sums. But successes of that kind are unusual. An excellent university with excellent science departments usually is built slowly, with its leaders putting forth a sustained, disciplined effort far beyond what is publicly visible. It is not only good physical equipment for research that attracts scientists of excellence; it is also collections of first-rate minds. And the scientists who are attracted come not only for the stature of being included, but also for the stimulation that cannot be duplicated by any-
thing else. So, there is a tendency for the rich to grow richer among university departments outstanding for their research. No one has yet proved that going against that tendency offers a better way to increase the rate of creation of new intellectual wealth. On the other hand, there are good reasons to doubt the wisdom—in a country so large and so populous as ours—of constantly increasing centralization of superior university talent. The purpose of a university should be not only to do research but also, above all, to develop educated young people. We are not likely to grow more first-rate universities if we don't start somewhere. We cannot yet claim to be reaching all the best young minds with excellent teaching. Excellent teaching in science benefits from good research in a department. Where a sound department is willing and potentially able to put forth the serious effort required, federal help can give it a chance to prove what it can do. The federal program of institutional development is aimed in that direction and should be supported and encouraged.
flrZjtaAjjt\M*MJ^€^AUG. 8, 1966 C&EN
5
