land. Communications were rudimentary. The methods available made the soil a hard taskmaster, and more often than not the livelihood was marginal. All hands were needed in the field and only scant resources were available for education. Public schooling usually lasted only for a brief childhood—and then only if a school was nearby. As the industrial revolution evolved, communications improved, and productivity in the factory and on the farm rose so that more of the young could be spared and supported in the classroom and for a longer time. Moreover, the industrial revolution demanded skills unknown to the field hand. Larger numbers of youngsters received increasing amounts of education.

In assistance to education, the Federal Government played little part until 1862 when the Morrill Act established the Land Grant Colleges. In accordance with the American character, the motivation was practical. The Act, basically a response to the Industrial Revolution, recognized that practical education was important to the national welfare. While the Land Grant Colleges provided an important framework for developing an egalitarian system of higher education, development and support remained almost entirely private, state and local matter for nearly a century.

The striking success of the mobilization of the nation's scientific manpower in World War II provided a turning point. For characteristically practical reasons-primarily the feeling of continuing needs in national defense in a world of alarming new dangers--the American people undertook immediately after the war the support of basic scientific research through several Federal agencies. In the bargain, although without specific provision, graduate teaching in science was supported. The nation backed into the support of education at the highest level.

While the primary initial motivation was the national defense, much more was and has become involved. As a nation we recognize our involvement in a Scientific Revolution. The cycle that emerged first in the Industrial Revolution is now accelerated and well-defined: new knowledge breeds new technology which raises and diversifies productivity which expands affluence; to breed new knowledge it is necessary to finance exploration and education at the most sophisticated levels. It penetrated the national consciousness that knowledge and cultivated brains drive this circular system.

Sputnik drove home another lesson, namely that the production of the most advanced brainpower is a national problem and a Federal responsibility. The result was the National Defense Education Act of 1958. passed under the umbrella of utilitarianism by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. Although the original act was limited in objectives, it provided the framework for broadening national support to strengthen education at all levels. This has been done through Federal provision made in 1961, 1964, 1965, and in the Higher Education Amendments of 1968. I understand you will observe the 10th anniversary of the NDEA in a symposium here. Although the NDEA cuts of last year were continued in fiscal 1969, I nevertheless believe the bipartisan passage of the 1968 amendments demonstrates a national faith in the importance of Federal aid to higher education even in times of severe budgetary stress.

Parenthetically, the NDEA became law on September 2, 1958, two weeks after I took up my duties as Chancellor of the Berkeley campus of the University of California. One of my early official acts was to appoint a faculty committee to consider the opportunities offered to the University by the Act. From this beginning we developed programs of scholarships, fellowships, language institutes and modern teaching aids that are resources of continuing significance to the Berkeley campus.

But the record of Federal support of graduate study, as well as education at lower levels, does not end with NDEA and the several Federal agencies that support science and engineering. The measures I have cited were taken primarily for what appeared to be utilitarian reasons. Largely neglected in this history of Federal involvement were the arts, the humanities and the social sciences. It has been argued with considerable heat-and no little merit-that Federal support has thus unbalanced the educational and intellectual enterprise. For many years I, and many of my colleagues in science, have been arguing the same point. Science alone, although it is rich in humanistic values that are sometimes forgotten, is not enough for men and women in the Scientific Revolution. We need a consciousness of man's rich history and culture. We must produce men and women who can sense and describe through art, music and literature the human experience in an age of science. We must redouble our effort to understand human behavior in all of its manifestations, and to improve our methods of implementing, through knowledge and understanding, man's constructive and peaceful adaptation to changing conditions.

In 1965, finally, we took an important step in providing nourishment for neglected intellectual endeavors, when Congress passed legislation establishing the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. I had the privilege of serving from 1962 to 1965 on the Commission on the Humanities, whose report played a significant role in establishing the Foundation. This was a very important measure for strengthening the arts and the humanities, and as a scientist I was particularly gratified to take part in it.

The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities is comprised of a Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, a National Endowment for the Arts, a National Endowment for the Humanities, and National Councils on the Arts and the Humanities. Its purpose is to help support and encourage literary and scholarly pursuits and creative arts of the highest caliber. In the arts its interests include (but are not limited to) music, dance, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and crafts arts, industrial design, fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, tape recording, and all the other arts related to the preservation, performance, execution and exhibition of these major art forms. In the humanities it is concerned with our knowledge and understanding of literature, language, archaeology, history, and the classics, religion, philosophy, and the preservation of our heritage in all these fields. This is indeed a lot of ground to cover, but the range of interests indicates, I think, the thorough consideration of the complex needs of our creative and intellectual life that has gone into the planning and activities of the Foundation.

It is true that modesty characterizes the initial financing of the Foundation. Yet it should be remembered that the same kind of restraint was practiced in the initial budgeting of the National Science Foundation-the first Federal provision frankly directed at supporting pure science on a broad base. The first budget for the NSF, for the fiscal year 1952, was $3.5 million, while the budget for fiscal 1969 is $435 million. I believe the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, having an initial budget of $10.75 million in fiscal year 1966, also will grow (although perhaps not at the rate that the National Science Foundation grew) and become an increasingly important force in our system of graduate education and scholarship.

Another effort to fill a vacuum in a major area is the support that the National Science Foundation has been authorized to give to the social sciences. The Foundation now has a Division of Social Sciences which sponsors research in anthropology, economics, geography, the history and philosophy of science, political science, sociology, and social psychology. Again, the support is modest, but I believe there is growing understanding that these fields must have stronger support.

My reason for this exposition of facts that are hardly astonishing to you is to lay the groundwork for some generalizations. The first of these is that, in my opinion, the Federal-university partnership in cultivating intellectual resources is a permanent one. I believe this partnership, as well as support in the lower schools, is based on acceptance by the public, the Congress and the Executive Department of government that the young are a national resource; and that the development of that resource through education to the highest levels can be neglected only at our peril. Whether the quantity and quality of higher education in both private and state-supported institutions is adequate or inadequate depends primarily upon the Federal Government.

My second generalization is that the framework for adequate Federal participation, broadly, in educational support is now largely available. If the support is uneven and in places inadequate, we can take heart from the fact that most of the machinery is functioning, the precedents have been established, and past experience suggests growth in the future.

Third, Federal support for education at the college and graduate level is relatively nonpolitical. The obvious need, as well as the successful example of support for science, has allayed, if not abolished, old fears of centralist control, and muted sectional problems and religious questions.

Finally, the dynamics of the Scientific Revolution-the cycle of accelerating scientific and technological power, increasing productivity, greater leisure, and the demands for higher skills-seem to me to guarantee not only the permanence but the increase in Federal involvement. To this opinion I would add the view of Alan Pifer, President of the Carnegie Corporation, who early this year stated that he anticipated Federal support might increase until by 1975 government funds will supply at least 50 percent of university budget needs. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, as a result of its study to which I shall

refer in a moment, believes that the Federal share of the cost of higher education will increase from the present 20-25 percent to about one-third by 1975. While vast support must continue at the local and state levels, the national responsibility is clear and irreversible.

To some extent we can see in a few statistics how levels of education and sophistication are being driven upward at an accelerating pace. Between 1900 and 1960 enrollment for undergraduate students increased 14 times, while graduate enrollment increased 57 times. This growth in graduate enrollment reflects the demand for more highly trained people. During the decade of the 1950's the total labor force increased by 17 percent, while professional and technical workers increased by 43 percent and managers, officials and proprietors by 33 percent. Not all of you will agree, I am sure, with my optimistic outlook on the Federaluniversity partnership. In particular, there has been considerable gloom over the tapering off of budgets in the sciences at the graduate level. Many valuable programs have suffered from cuts in NDEA funds. The reasons for the slowdown are well-known, but they bear repeating. Since I am most familiar with the financing of science, I will speak of the situation in this area.

Research and development enjoyed a dramatic and uninterrupted rise in Federal financing starting after World War II. At one point it was estimated that if the rate of growth continued, by the year 2000 the budget for research and development would be approximately equal to the gross national product! On these grounds alone an adjustment was inevitable and should not have been cause for surprise. That the adjustment was necessitated by unusual Federal financial problems, rising from Vietnam and domestic difficulties, has served to escalate the problems of the graduate schools. I believe, however, we are warranted in assuming that the present circumstances represent an unavoidable and temporary retrenchment. The present commitment is extensive, and the program generally has remained vigorous.

As Federal support grows the present framework will inevitably need to be broadened. The individual research grant or project, awarded on the merits of the proposal and the competence of the participant, should continue to be the basic form of support. Certain problems have already appeared or can be foreseen in these programs. This year the government, which traditionally has dealt with individual investigators, asked the central administrations of the universities to impose severe cuts on National Science Foundation funds for each campus. This action understandably caught the campuses unprepared, and contingency arrangements must be developed by mutual agreement between the partners to avoid administrative crises, whatever the cause, in the future. Also in the future block grants and unrestricted funds will assume increasing importance, and national fellowships, awarded on a competitive basis, will play an important role. The universities do not have the administrative machinery to handle this and must prepare themselves to cope with the allocation of salary and other operating expenses, equipment, and construction funds under such a regime.

The present Federal support operates in a pluralistic framework with many government agencies involved, and this has many advantages which should be continued. However, it has the disadvantage that comes with the Government appearing to speak, and actually speaking, with more than one voice. This unfavorable aspect and the serious problems caused by sudden reductions in financial support must be overcome by the introduction of more rational apparatus at the Federal level. Also we need to establish a relationship between Federal support for academic science and the emerging Federal role in the overall support of higher education. I expect that increased coordination, through a council or committee mechanism, will be forthcoming soon, followed by the creation of a cabinet level Department of Education.

I believe that in the years ahead ways will be found for stabilizing government financing of the universities to avoid shock treatment, and also to provide for the moderate growth and funds essential for spontaneous creative initiative. A formula for science suggested by Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Science Advisor to the President, would provide a growth rate in research and development of 6 percent per year, plus a "sophistication factor" of 1 to 4 percent to take care of growing complexity of research and equipment. The 6 percent figure is roughly proportionate to the recent rise in the gross national product. The reasoning, and I think it is sound, is based on the nature of our society; since new knowledge and technology are essential to growth of the economy, a regular investment should be made, taking into account knowledge as a growth factor. I am

persuaded that in time efforts to develop formulae for insuring stability in the whole spectrum of Government financing of the universities will succeed. However, I suggest that the development of this expanded Federal-university partnership in a manner satisfactory to higher education will depend upon university administrators and faculty paying much more attention than they do now to this important expanding partnership. Congressman John Brademus of Indiana, a member of the House Committee on Education and Labor, suggested in a speech earlier this year to the American Political Science Association that this might offer an opportunity for political scientists to make a contribution.

In particular, we need a broader, rather than a narrower, base of faculty consultation with government in these matters. In view of the rising significance of Federal funds for the universities, such time will be well spent in achieving the most meaningful structuring of programs. Nor should faculty members be subject to criticism for taking part in these activities that are especially critical for the success of graduate education. If the field of science is any measure, adequate faculty participation on committees formulating policy for government-financed academic programs if salutory, and has not led to discernible neglect of, or deterioration of, the participants' performance of their individual teaching responsibilities. The graduate teaching programs in science are sound and relatively free from criticism. While the reasons for this are complex, significant credit can be given to sound policies emerging from committees populated by academic scientists.

One of the big problems in establishing a growth rate for basic research, like it or not, is determining the economic value of discovery. This is tending to become a basic need in the physical and biological sciences, perhaps also in the social sciences and to a lesser extent in the arts and humanities. In science new knowledge accumulates on the shelf for years, seeps into the culture and the bones of research and may be catalyzed into technology by a discovery or series of discoveries having an essentially untraceable background. We are constantly asked for examples of practical applications of new basic knowledge—too often defined as a discrete discovery made yesterday that we can see plainly in a mousetrap built today.

A friend of mine was telling me recently about his efforts to pull together a few examples of this. Most discoveries cannot be computed in dollars and cents. But he had found one that had a tag on it-the discovery of plutonium, in which I was fortunate enough to participate, using E. O. Lawrence's cyclotron at the University of California, Berkeley. My friend told me that someone had computed the dollar value of the energy at present worth that could be derived from available U.S. uranium reserves, using the uranium-plutonium cycle in breeder reactors. The price was about fifty quadrillion dollars. My friendkeeping a straight face-went on to tell me that he couldn't allow me and my colleagues that much credit. He would have to assign large portions to Fermi and his colleagues for demonstrating the chain reaction, to the engineers (past, present and future) who have a claim on development, to the AEC and to industry for their large capital investments, and to my predecessors whose work had created the possibility of the discovery in the first place. He also pointed out that another source of power, such as fusion, might come along to replace the breeder before we burned up all the uranium fuel. By the time he got through, he said deprecatingly that he could assign me and my colleagues only a few hundred billion dollars credit for the discovery. I think I was being kidded, but I'm not sure how.

Seriously though, the problem of quantifying the value of "spinoff" from basic research is not trivial. I look forward to the time when some group of economists, perhaps supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, makes a breakthrough in establishing realistic criteria in this field.

While I believe the future of Federal support for graduate research in science—and in other fields as well-is reasonably bright, I think it is clear that the old days of 15 to 25 percent annual increases are gone. And I believe that both during the present period of stringency and what appears to be a future of modest growth, graduate schools can profit from expansion and diversification of their resources through new forms of the Federal-university partnership. In the field of science there is a rich potential in the use by the universities of government laboratories. The example of this with which I am most familiar and which probably represents the broadest present exploitation of this potential is the growing use for education and research by the universities, individually and through associations, of the extensive and often unique and expensive facilities of the AEC's national laboratories, and the opportunities are by no

means exhausted. The numerous educational institutions associated with the Argonne National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Brookhaven National Laboratory have increased their participation in the programs of those laboratories. In addition, we now have cooperative arrangements for both nearby and somewhat distant colleges and universities to take advantage of the unique facilities of the Commission's Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Livermore, California, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory in the State of Washington, the University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico, the Savannah River Laboratory in South Carolina and the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. In the use of these facilities by the universities, both the graduate schools and the laboratories benefit.

I attended in October a joint University and Federal Council of Science and Technology symposium at which the potential of the Federal Laboratory-University relationship was explored in depth. This symposium, the first of its kind but certainly not the last, held in Washington, D.C., was arranged in large part by Dr. Allen Astin, Director of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Here I learned about the growing use for education and research by universities and colleges of the laboratories and facilities of the National Bureau of Standards, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Defense, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare. Dr. Astin has expressed the view that this growing collaboration is to an appreciable degree an extension of the pattern so effectively developed in the national laboratories of the AEC.

An example that may serve as a model for the future in the governmentuniversity partnership was the formation of the Universities Research Association, Inc. This consortium, now consisting of 46 universities (including the University of Toronto), was formed to cooperate with the Federal Government in supporting and managing large research facilities. The present plan for the Universities Research Association is for it to serve the AEC as a contractor for constructing the 200 BeV accelerator facility at Batavia, Illinois and for operating this accelerator center as a national facility available for the use of qualified scientists from any institution in the country. URA will strengthen both the national program in high energy physics and the participation of the universities in that program. The university-based scientists and graduate students who use the National Accelerator Laboratory will provide a continual source of creative talent for high energy physics research, and the universities are assured of having a direct role in managing the Batavia facility. And when we consider the advantages that could develop from such an association between a government agency and a group of universities, the prospects that URA could assume responsibilities for the 200 BeV accelerator look very promising indeed.

Interinstitutional arrangements represent a growing and promising form of such government-university financing, otherwise available, across the whole spectrum of graduate education. I recognize the differences in requirements from field to field; nevertheless, wherever extensive area or regional participation can be shown, the chances of Federal support are enhanced.

As Eldon Johnson, Vice President of the University of Illinois, pointed out in last year's fall issue of the Educational Record, "There is a certain inevitability about this kind of interinstitutional cooperation. It is, so to speak, in the wind, and emerges logically from modern society."

There are significant benefits to universities in such cooperation. There are the advantages inherent in economies of scale and in jointly sharing risks and collectively assuming responsibilities. As the size and cost of our national educational establishment grow, there is a compelling need to work out a more orderly division of function and a more efficient allocation of resources for developing specialized competence in the many rapidly growing areas of research and instruction. This is an imperative that is being increasingly emphasized by taxpayers and legislatures. Federal legislation and administration guidelines now offer encouragement and authorize support for cooperative programs among universities, foundations, and agencies. Organizing resources into a common pool (such as arranging to share libraries, computers, and costly laboratory facilities and experiment stations) can bring together enough common effort to provide a "critical mass" for effective programs ranging over broad areas, such as marine sciences, environmental studies, urban development, and the simulation of large social and economic systems. I wonder if, for example, the URA model does not offer some encouragement to the social sciences and