15.2. FEDERAL SUPPORT OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH: AN ENTITLEMENT OR A MEANS TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL GOALS?
Vannevar Bush's assertion that benefits from basic research would be too far in the future for industrial support and that the cost is too great for philanthropy alone has historically proven to be correct. Over the years, industry has accounted for less than 10 percent of the total research funding at academic institutions in the United States (as discussed later in this chapter on sources of academic research funding). This then points to the need for the government to assume this responsibility and to nurture basic research efforts. It was further argued that such basic research would take place primarily in the universities and that major decisions regarding the allocation of funds for basic research are best left to the scientific establishment (Bush, Science, the Endless Frontier, 1945).
As discussed earlier in the chapter, U.S. academic institutions' unique characteristics are related to (a) free flow of ideas and talent from throughout the world, (b) a long history of public support for this enterprise, (c) opportunities it provides for the initiative of individual scientists at relatively early stages in their career, and (d) the history of preeminence of U.S. academic institutions in scientific accomplishments (National Academy of Engineering, 1993).
Neal Lane, director of the National Science Foundation, has stated that the federal government's support for basic research at academic institutions is important because it fulfills crucial national objectives to generate new knowledge and to educate scientists and engineers. Furthermore, many authoritative studies have shown that support for basic research is a prudent investment that pays substantial dividends, exceeding 20 percent in real economic terms (Lane, 1996).
U.S. industry leaders, normally critical of government spending, recognize the importance of federal government support for academic research. Fifteen chief executive officers of the largest U.S. corporations, in letters to the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House (March 13, 1995), vigorously supported federal investment in academic research and they stated:
We...urge your continued support of a robust federally supported university research program. We recognize you face some tough choices as you deliberate and ultimately decide which federal programs merit continued support. We understand that priorities must be established. We strongly recommend, however, that you maintain a high priority on supporting the research efforts being carried out in our universities.
...America's leadership position in an ever-increasing globally competitive economy has been fueled by our technological prowess. Our universities, and the research programs pursued therein, have played a pivotal role.
Our message is simple. Our university system and its research programs play a central and critical role in advancing our state of knowledge. Without adequate federal support, university research efforts will quickly erode. American industry will then cease to have access to the basic technologies and well-educated scientists and engineers that have served American interests so well.
As stated in the National Science and Technology Council report 1999 (p. 1-12), "Federally supported university-based research is a critically important investment by the nation in its future prosperity and wellbeing. Federal investments in university-based research are an integral component of the larger research and development enterprise that has enabled approximately half of the nation's productivity and growth in the last 50 years."
"The manner in which we have chosen as a nation to invest in scientific and engineering research has, not surprisingly, reflected the pluralism of our communities and the decentralized structure of our governing institutions.... Universities have served not only as critical research locations, but as a training ground for the next generation of scientists and engineers. The close coupling of research and education has become a hallmark of the U.S. system of higher education, producing the finest scientists and engineers prepared to perform cutting edge research and to manage high-technology enterprises across a broad range of disciplines and in multiple venues."
Dr. Alan I. Leshner (2009), CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the nation's largest scientific organization, sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority Leader on February 19, 2009, to urge Congress to support science and technology funding for the universities and other federal agencies in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. The letter stated, "Allocating funds to S&T will create thousands of American jobs and bolster the economy for years to come. Moreover, these funds will help secure the United States of America's leadership in emerging technologies and innovation." The letter further stated, "funding for research, infrastructure and education through a range of agencies, universities, and laboratories is a vital element of this package."
Investment in basic research is clearly needed to achieve national goals of economic growth, job development, and international competitiveness and to address crucial societal problems. Decisions about the level of investment in basic research are an open question. This is further elaborated in the following sections. Investment in basic research at universities, as discussed earlier, is best justified to support the institutions' primary mission of education, generating new knowledge, and service. Thus, it is not an entitlement in any sense. Considerable criticism, however, has been leveled against the university research enterprise. Some argue that it has increasingly become an entitlement rather than a means to achieve national goals. Questions have been raised about the utility, effectiveness, and efficiency of this investment. Some examples of concerns and criticisms related to the university research enterprise follow.
In the engineering colleges in the United States, there is an emphasis on pursuit of excellence and leadership in basic research; this, in turn, leads to undervaluation of other types of technical activity. By "overvaluing the pursuit of original knowledge relative to excellence in execution, many engineering schools have helped to create, or at least to sustain, dysfunctional walls between research and other downstream technological activities in American industry" (National Academy of Engineering, 1993, p. 64).
There is a mismatch between the university research agenda and the problems and needs of society, especially those perceived by industry (Brooks, 1994a). Academic research is inspired by the culture of the discipline. Problems and needs of society arise in a complex technological and social context, thus requiring cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though, recently, at universities, considerable emphasis is being placed on interdisciplinary research collaboration, there is little evidence that this is either rewarded or increasing in any appreciable manner.
The manner in which Congress earmarks academic research is another reason for serious criticism of the university research enterprise. Hanson (1994) and Long (1992) discuss the practice of appropriating federal funds by the use of academic earmarks. Universities use political clout to get funding, and this political process is not reflective of the merit of or need for a particular research project. This process would very likely gradually lower the quality of scientific research by rewarding political strength rather than true scientific merit.