Federal Alert— new regulations
GOVERNMENT
Research Universities Face Major Structural Changes It is clear that some big structural challenges face U.S. research universities in the coming times of financial stress. Some of them were underscored at the recent meeting on the subject at the National Academy of Sciences (C&EN, March 3, page 6). Just last week the academy sent a summary report of the conference to some 4000 members of the research community. In its report, the academy concludes that "the magnitude of the projected budget deficits signals a long period of austerity, whether or not it takes the form of the severe, successive Gramm-RudmanHollings domestic funding cuts of as much as 15% per year." The conference organizers—consisting of the academies of Science and Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and the Government-University-Industry Roundtable—agreed that financial relief cannot be depended on from states, foundations, or industry. Shifts in existing modes of support will have to occur. But at the same time, what the universities will have to do, according to the organizers, will be to eliminate weak programs, streamline administrative procedures, and pool resources. Ideas for the better management of university research along the lines indicated will come up more and more in the future, the report asserts. The report plays down the possibility of any direct Defense Department development money being shifted to NSF research. But "a more likely possibility" surfaces from the discussions. "A good development manager inevitably runs into fundamental problems requiring a research solution," the report says. "The road to a solution is easier if the manager has close ties to the research community. The way to maintain such ties is through the maintenance of an ongoing basic research program in fields underly-
ing the development activity." It mentions the Defense Department's Strategic Defense Initiative as a possible model. "We t h i n k , " National Science Board chairman Roland W. Schmitt tells C&EN, "that the National Science Foundation would be in a good position to manage the basic research needs of the mission agencies." And he implies that NSF could even manage the basic research aspects of the Defense Department's SDI along the lines suggested. NSF in effect would be the conduit for basic research funds from SDI projects to universities. But that idea raises the question of whether NSF should get involved in issues related to the national defense, even if the research were unclassified. What emerges from all of this is that the country's research system is no longer facing fundamental changes; it is now in the midst of them. Basic, industrial, and military research is now being seen, at least conceptually, as a seamless web of policy. Whether it remains so will depend on how deeply Congress chooses to get involved in the debate over those policy priorities. The conference did introduce a number of questions that the 400 w h o assembled for the meeting could not answer. Among them: Does the country have too many major research universities? Should universities specialize in fewer fields? Should the research system continue to concentrate basic research in universities? Should several federal laboratories be abandoned as irrelevant to national research needs? Can the system slow down or defer large national initiatives such as expensive high-energy accelerators and ambitious astronomy and space enterprises? What must be done to attract America's young people to the rig-
This listing highlights regulations published in the Federal Register from Jan. 1 through March 14. Complete information is available on the appropriate page number. PROPOSED Environmental Protection Agency—Bans manufacture, importation, and processing of products using asbestos and bans many asbestos-containing products such as cement pipe and floor tiles; comments by April 29 (Jan. 29, page 3738). Amends hazardous waste identification regulation to include acutely toxic mixtures of commercial chemicals; comments by April 14 (Feb. 13, page 5472). Revises workplace standards at licensed uranium mills to reduce exposure to radon-222 emissions (Feb. 21, page 6382). Adds five lead alkyl compounds from tetraethyllead manufacture to list of hazardous wastes; comments by April 18 (March 4, page 7455). Prohibits export of all hazardous wastes unless specific prescribed requirements are met; comments by April 28 (March 13, page 8744). FINAL Agriculture Department—Allows fumigation of mangoes by ethylene dibromide as condition-of-entry for importation from specified countries; effective Feb. 14 (Feb. 21, page 6213). Commerce Department—Removes some national security export controls from isononyl alcohol, triisononyl trimellitate, and triisooctyl trimellitate; effective Jan. 21 (Jan. 21, page 2683). Food & Drug Administration—Permits use of ionizing radiation for microbial disinfection of lab diets for rodents; effective Feb. 19 (Feb. 19, page 5992). Mandates that aspirin products carry warning label about possibility of Reye's syndrome if used to treat children for chicken pox or flu; effective June 5 (March 7, page 8180). Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Requires research and test reactors to revert to low-enriched uranium fuel where federal funds are available; effective March 27 (Feb. 25, page 6596). NOTICES Centers for Disease Control—Announces availability of $6.2 million for grants to do research on occupational safety and health (Feb. 25, page 6596). Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Requests comments on establishment of federal research and development center for radioactive waste management; comments by April 24 (March 11, page 8383).
March 31, 1986 C&EN
11
Government
Schmitt: NSF could manage needs ors of learning mathematics and sci ence, especially at a time w h e n youths are stimulated mainly by vi sual presentations of science? The debates over all these issues are about to begin in earnest. Right now no one, apparently, can pre dict the outcome. Wil Lepkowski, Washington
Funding mechanism: little effect on research As part of its wide-ranging inquiry into the role of the federal govern ment in supporting basic and ap plied research, the House Science Policy Task Force wanted to know what impact various funding mech anisms had on research productivi ty and performance. So it asked the General Accounting Office to find out. The answer is, "Not much." In its study, GAO looked at two issues—whether particular funding mechanisms play a role in helping universities improve program qual ity; and whether funding mecha nisms have different effects on re search performance. For the second issue, GAO considered two funding mechanisms—individual project grants that support individual re searchers doing specific research, and center grants that support broad coherent programs and cover facil ities, equipment, and scientific and administrative personnel. 12
March 31, 1986 C&EN
In addressing the first issue, GAO focused on how five universities were able to improve substantially at least one research program after the federal government largely elim inated special financial assistance for program improvement in the early 1970s. Selected for study were Emory University's department of microbiology and i m m u n o l o g y , Georgia Institute of Technology's school of chemical engineering, the University of Alabama's (Birming ham) department of physiology and biophysics, the University of Geor gia's department of botany, and the University of Texas' department of physics. Selection was based on their im provement in rankings of program quality in two surveys of the scien tific community. One was carried out by the American Council of Ed ucation in 1969 and the other by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils in 1982. The GAO study was limited to the Southeast because of budget constraints. GAO found that seed funding from either government or private sources was a prerequisite to pro gram improvement in all the de partments. Even more important, however, was an explicit commit ment from the university to improve its program primarily through the recruitment of highly qualified fac ulty members, renovation of re search space, and purchase of criti cal equipment. As to funding mechanisms, GAO found that they play different roles at different stages. It doesn't really matter where the money comes from as long as it's there. After the in vestment of seed money in the five departments, faculty members com peted successfully in their fields, and the primary source of support became the individual project mech anism. However, the universities' commitment to absorb the increased faculty costs, when the science de velopment grants or other seed mon ey ended, helped sustain the highquality programs and allowed the departments time to become pre dominantly self-supporting, accord ing to GAO. To address the second issue, GAO compared five departments that rely primarily on individual project
grants for support with five centers in the same fields that rely on cen ter grants. For each one, GAO ex amined four key factors that affect research performance—coverage of research requirements, stability of financial and resource support, the influence of funding mechanisms on the flexibility to pursue new and different categories of research, and administrative burden. Experience with individual project or center awards did not appear to be a significant factor affecting sci entists' responses to questions con cerning adequacy of equipment and facilities, according to GAO. Instead, perceptions of problems in those areas differed by field of science. Of the scientists surveyed, 78Ψο said that the quality of their research facilities had increased or stayed the same since 1970. However, scien tists in the fields of cell biology, mathematics, and space sciences said the quality of their facilities had gone downhill. Scientists in all fields, except mathematics, expressed concern over equipment. More than half said that needed equipment is hard to obtain. Problems with funding for tech nicians cut across all fields and funding mechanisms, with more than 80% of the scientists saying it was difficult to hire and retain needed technicians. However, those problems were attributed mainly to industrial competition and current salary structures for technicians at different universities. A separate funding mechanism for graduate student support was advocated by almost 90% of the scientists. The funding mechanism had the most impact on stability of research funding. According to GAO, 50% of the department scientists said that gaps in funding, which sometimes translated into the breakup of re search teams and the loss of trained professional technicians, was a prob lem. Just over 25% of the center scientists said funding gaps were a problem. GAO also found that sci entists working in research centers were much more likely than their department counterparts to be en gaged in research that bridged two or more fields, to propose research in new areas, and to propose work with industrial applications. D
