« PreviousContinue »
reliance on project support, additional funds should be made available on an institutional basis for research-related activities which they select. Such activities might include:
provision of support for research that cannot yet be funded externally,
provision of central research facilities not otherwise provided for support of new investigators,
provision of a financial “shock absorber" when grants, contracts, training grants, or fellowships are unexpectedly curtailed or terminated. Support of this type is already provided by NSF for the total science activities of institutions, but the funds provided are grossly inadequate to fulfill the functions that are suggested here and project funding dominates present doctrine. NIH makes similar grants, restricted to the biomedical research sector, but available funds have never reached the levels authorized by Congress. The enlarge ment of this type of support would involve boosting the NSF and NIH budgets since basic legislative authority for institutional support already exists.
On the other hand, the general underpinning for university finances should not be provided via the route of science and technology as suggested by the so-called Miller bill. No single formula can be used to accomplish all federal objectives in these institutions. Formulas for such grants must be devised after careful study of the actual effects of suggested changes upon the ongoing programs of typical institutions in various parts of the country.
It must be emphasized that the key to successful use of institutional funding to alleviate imbalances created by project-grants is the formula employed. Careful and detailed study of the broad area of general support of higher education is a necessity before any long-term action is taken.
3. Establish NSF as a Prime source of Federal Funds for Academic Science.As a long-range objective, NSF should provide the stable primary base of federal support for academic science as the agency acquires the capacity to secure markedly higher and stable budgets. The mission-oriented agencies should continue to support academic science, but they should not be expected to provide broadly based support for academic science without regard to the limits set by their missions.
NSF should not be regarded as a "gap-filler" or "balance wheel" but as the strong point in the Federal Government concerned with the strengthening of academic science, and as a major source (not less than a third of the total) of federal funds for academic science. C. Improve the Administration of Federal Academic Science Programs
1. Reduce Administrative Inconsistencies.-Much of the heat associated with academic science problems still comes from inconsistencies among federal agencies in policies, procedures, and practices with respect to contract and grant administration including such matters as proposal content and format, terms and conditions of agreements, property and equipment title, and records requirements, and technical, financial, and administrative reporting.
At little or not cost, steps to eliminate inconsistencies (not to establish rigid standardization) would do a great deal to restore the academic community's confidence that the government understands and is concerned with the problems faced by the universities.
2. Establish Sound Policy Guides.-In such areas as cost sharing and charging of faculty salaries to federal research grants and contracts, the establishment of generally accepted, consistent philosophy as to the proper roles, rights, and obligations of universities and the Federal Government is the key to resolutions of difficulties.
3. Cushion the Shock of Unexpected Restriction of Funds.-All agencies should be instructed to take steps to minimize sudden termination of grants and contract support through arrangements to "phase out" support over a reasonable pe riod of time. The “step-funding" approach of the type used by NASA and the DOD Project Themis (a three-year grant with two years' initial funding on a 123–13 basis) is an example of such an arrangement. The precise devices that are needed and practicable will depend upon the circumstances facing each agency. This is difficult to achieve immediately withvut more NOA and, of course, it is not a protection against expenditure cuts.
It is improbable, although not impossible, that agencies will again be in a position to incur obligations for academic science to an extent that an expenditure cut will catch them in a situation where they cannot meet existing commitments although new starts might be affected.
4. Central Administrative Responsibility of the Bureau of the Budget.-The key to dealing effectively with these administrative problems is the establishment of a capable organization with resources to permit adequate continuing work on the problem and with authority to make its decisions stick.
Responsibility for further progress should rest with the Bureau of the Budget, which should provide resources for continuing improvement of the important *nuts and bolts" aspects of government-university relations in science.
The significance of improved administration of academic science should be emphasized by the simultaneous issuance of an appropriate Presidential directive-memorandum or letter. This should direct the agencies to cooperate with BOB in establishing uniform and consistent administrative practices to the greatest degree permitted by law, to simplify their grant and contract procedures for academic science, to adapt their regular procurement rules and procedures to the special requirements of R & D, and to assist colleges and universities with the establishment of these procedures. BOB already has responsibility for administrative management, emphasis on the urgency of the matter through issuance of a Presidential directive would increase the probability of effective action. —The alternative of placing responsibility in a new agency ("a GSA for aca
demic science") has been discarded because the function is not broad enough or significant enough to warrant establishment of a new agency. The alternative of placing the function in OST was discarded because OST does not have the responsibility, management staff and experience possessed by BOB, and because assumption of this responsibility by OST would reduce
its capacity to perform its primary functions. D. Improve the Organization of the Executive Office for Science and Education
Because of the gravity and urgency of the policy questions relating to education and science described earlier in this report, and because there is now no point in the executive branch where these issues can be discussed and resolved effectively on a continuing institutionalized basis, it is concluded that a new, permanent grouping of functions in the executive branch is needed. Leadership and coordination of the departments and the establishment of policy for functions properly performed in a number of agencies can be effectively undertaken only in the Executive Office.
1. Alternative A. Establish a Statutory Council of Advisers on Education and Science.-A Council of Advisers on Education and Science should be established by legislation. The members should be full-time Presidential appointees, as contrasted with part-time advisers (as in the case of PSAC) or representatives of departments and agencies (as in the case of the Space Council).
The central function of this group would be to provide a continuing institutional strong point in the Executive Office-a point which does not now existto help the President with policy matters involving education, science and technology, and their interrelationships. A central concern of the Council would be with the kinds of complex problems relating to both education (particularly graduate education) and science (particularly academic science) noted earlier in this report.
An important role for the Council would be to meet the urgent needs of Congress for an understanding of the facts and the position of the administration on national goals in science, technology, and education. It would report to various committees of Congress on the progress being made by both public and private bodies, and thereby contribute to the understanding in Congress which has thus far been largely absent. Although the Council would not be responsible for carrying out programs, its relationship to the President, to the Bureau of the Budget, to Cabinet-level officers, and to Congress could be such that its influence would be substantial.
In more specific terms, it would be concerned with the problems that now concern OST, plus the central policy issues faced by the Federal Government with respect to education. It would advise with respect to support of institutions and support of students. On the science side, the new Council would be concerned with examination of the interactions of science with social development, international relations, technological advance and cconomic growth. It would study the mix of national investment in research, identify gaps, and evolve long-range science policy goals. A central concern of the Council would be the integration of policies with respect to support of graduate education and science.
PSAC would be retained. The FCST would be needed also.
So far as operating methods are concerned, the Council would be available to provide staff advice to the President and the Bureau of the Budget. It would replace OST, whose staff might become the Council staff while the Director of OST might become Chairman of the Council.
A sub-alternative worthy of serious consideration is a limitation of the role of the Council to graduate education and to academic science. This smaller package is more coherent, but lacks breadth and the full scope of problems in education and science should be encompassed, particularly if legislation is sought. However, if on political or other grounds the narrower definition seems preferable, such a Council would still represent an advance. Extension of functions could be informal and later ratified by legislation if
this seemed desirable. 2. Alternative B. Broaden and Strengthen OST.-The charter of the Office of Science and Technology should be redrafted to encompss policy towards graduate education as well as for science and technology. The change should be ratified by general legislation (as contrasted with a reorganization plan) to expose the issues to debate and to secure positive Congressional action. A persuasive reason for seeking legislation is that the debates in Congress would assist in generating Congressional understanding and support, and a feeling that OST is adequately responsive to Congress while remaining responsible to the President. On the other hand, there is the ever-present possibility that new legislation might result in assignment of a set of unwanted functions and an awkward administrative structure. If it should be decided that primary legislation is not desirable, the necessary broadening of functions could be brought about by Presidential action.
As between a new statutory Council and a revision of the charter of OST (either by Presidential action or legislation), it is recommended that a Council be established by law, although either alternative would result in marked improvement of the capability of the Executive Office to serve the President and to help Congress. The reasons for preferring the statutory Council are there:
Science and education are now as significant to the national welfare as economic development and the federal role in these areas is expanding and becoming more complex. It is important that Congress ratify this estimate.
A new statutory Council would avoid the strong coloration of science and technology that would follow from putting the combined functions in OST.
The Council form would provide for the expression of varying philosophies by persons with dissimilar backgrounds.
Establishment of a Council by law would expose issues to broad public
debate and would ratify the operation in the eyes of Congress. E. Consider the Establishment of a New Cabinet Department of Higher Educa
tion and Science The establishment of a new Cabinet Department of Higher Education and Science might be a means of dealing with many of the problems cited earlier in this paper. As a general principle, it is desirable to place as many of the functions of the Executive Branch as possible in operating departments and agencies in order to keep the responsibilities of the Presidency within managable bounds. However, it is a great problem to define the functions of a new department in a manner that will provide a broad, coherent set of tasks while keeping to a minimum the interfaces and points of overlap with other agencies.
While the functions of higher education and science are in many respects coberent, such a grouping would present obvious questions and problems :
Should the Federal Government be organized so that responsibility for higher education is separated from other education ?
Should responsibility for science be separated from responsibility for technology?
Might it not be advisable to consider establishing a broad Department of Education, and a separate Department of Science ?
Should the education function be split off from the health and welfare functions, involving a significant shift in the philosophy underlying the
existing Department of Health, Education and Welfare? It is the conclusion of the author that the next practical steps involve changes short of the establishment of a new Cabinet department. It is, in fact, highly probable that the establishment of the proposed statutory Council on Education and Science would serve adequately for the foreseeable future the functions
that have been suggested for a new department, because the key functions are those that can be performed effectively only as part of the Presidency. For all of these reasons, issues involved in establishing a new department should be studied intensively.
Some examples of the problems that must be faced if centralization in a department or agency is chosen as the route are given in the following section.
SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH A CABINET DEPARTMENT
OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC SCIENCE
While it is not recommended that a Department of Education and Research be established now, the pros and cons of such a step should be seriously considered. This discussion is intended to suggest some plausible alternatives, and the issues raised by each.
Alternative I: Minimum Grouping.-The central functions of the Department of Education and Research would be those performed by NSF, the Office of Education, and the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities. This would bring together education and research, science, social science, and the humanities. These organizations, their statutory authorities, funds, and personnel would be transferred to the new department.
The argument for placing the NFAH in the Department is that the problem is not simply one of science or education. It involves all disciplines at all levels :
Science is only one important part of education.
Science will be most creative in a broad environment. Left to itself or supported disproportionately, it may be destructive of human society and disruptive of educational institutions. Its results must be formed and implemented
by contact with the humanities and social sciences. The organization of a Department of this scope below the Secretary and Under Secretary could consist of Assistant Secretaries for general education, for research, and for broad disciplines. This last Assistant Secretary could be the staff and coordinating officer. Under him, science, social science, humanities and arts would come as disciplines. He would work with the National Science Board and the Arts and Humanities Councils. He and each of the Councils would be required to make reports to the President and the Congress.
Under the Assistant Secretary for Education (General) would come the activities of the Office of Education.
Under the Assistant Secretary for Science would come the National Science Foundation.
Alternative II: Expanded Group.-In addition to NSF, OE and NFAH, include Federal Laboratories which are not closely linked to performance of the central statutory responsibilities of existing agencies. This would include the Bureau of Standards (NBS) as a minimum, and as a maximum would include not only the Bureau but those laboratory activities relating to study of the environment (ESSA). The arguments for placing laboratory operations in the Department are:
Operation of laboratories gives those who operate grant and contract programs a feel for the needs of scientists.
NBS and ESSA have important functions which cannot develop adequately within the Department of Commerce. The arguments against inclusion of these organizations are:
The functions of NSF and OE alone constitute adequate scope for a Department, and the addition of other organizations and functions would complicate the task of organizing and operating the Department.
The inclusion of ESSA in the new Department would forestall a regrouping of research functions in a department centered around investi
gation of the environment. Alternative III: Maximum Group.-A maximum option would be creation of a Department of Education and Research consisting of the OE, NSF, NFAH and the proposed Social Science Foundation, relevant life science programs of NIH and the VA research program.
9 The plan would include that part of the Federal effort in the arts that relates to education and research under the humanities. The balance of the Federal effort in the arts could be reorganized into an independent office including the National Endowment for the Arts, the Kennedy Center, and for other appropriate agencies.
Arguments for such a maximum reorganization proposals are:
It would correct the fragmentation of education and academic science responsibilities that now exist.
It would emphasize the commitment of the Federal Government to education and science.
It would make possible, for the first time, comprehensive policy planning, goal-setting, program evaluation, and administration for both education and academic science.
It would establish an undeniably strong central focus in Government, at the Cabinet level, for science cum education. Arguments against such a maximum reorganization are:
The strengths of separate identities (NSF, VA, NFAH, NIH) would be diminished excessively.
It would be too large and diverse to be administered well.
Political constituencies (medical, veterans) would fuse to block any chance of enactment.
It includes so much (NIH, VA) that it is unwieldly and excludes so much including the research components of DOD, AEC and NASA that it is not
actually comprehensive. In the judgment of the author, these arguments against a maximum group are weighty and main attention should be centered on the further development of Alternatives I and II, above.
Other Possibilities.-It is not difficult to envision other groupings. The three examples given above are based upon the assumption that science should be grouped administratively with education and separated from technology. The addition of AEC (excluding weapons development), NASA, and those elements of HEW responsible for development of antipollution technologies could be considered but the arguments, political and administrative, against any such merger are formidable.
The separation of education and manpower programs implied in the three alternatives might be judged to be a fault. Consideration could and should be given to placing responsibilities for manpower training-OEO programs, Department of Labor programs, HEW rehabilitation programs, and veterans training programs in the new Department. However, in addition to the contra arguments given for Alternative III, inclusion of responsibilities for training segments of the labor force would further diffuse and complicate the mission of the Department and would also remove these activities from their established bases of political support.
Dr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to respond to any questions.
Mr. DADDARIO. Gentlemen, I do think it would be helpful this morning if we were to allow Dr. Shannon to proceed, and then we can have the questioning of both Dr. Shannon and Dr. Bennett.
If that is agreeable, then, Dr. Shannon, if you will proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES A. SHANNON, M.D., SPECIAL ADVISER
TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. SHANNON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have prepared a very brief statement. In so doing I have deleted much detail from what was a substantially longer initial draft and I may have removed material that could have been of interest to the committee. I am prepared, in accordance with the wishes of the committee, to extend the presentation in direct response to questions or to provide supplemental material at a later date.
To start off, I would like to echo the comments of Dr. Bennett on the importance and effectiveness of the operations of this committee.
Turing now to the statement.
A more suitable organization for science within the executive branch is a manifestly urgent need. This view stems from the belief that, the nature of the organizational setting for Federal science can itself