« PreviousContinue »
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 gorernment-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 partnershin.
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 l'niversity and Federal Council of Science and Technology symposium at which the potential of the Federal Laboratory-t'niversity 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 viev 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. TRA 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
perhaps the humanities in the future establishment of large and powerful cooperative computer centers? Through “long line” electrical connections much of the work would be done without the necessity of traveling to the Center, Another example of the application of technology to the social sciences and humanities is the interconnection of libraries through television.
In such interinstitutional cooperation there are new and expanded opportunities for both faculty and students to take advantage of specialized training, financial assistance, and travel—all of these in addition to the experience to be gained by trying new ideas in the fields of educational research and methods, curriculum development, and interdisciplinary study.
Still another method for enhancing prospects of Federal assistance lies in initiative in obtaining a portion of the funds for a project through private and state sources. Last year the Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University dedicated an 88-inch cyclotron of sophisticated design. I doubt that Federal support would have been possible without a commitment of half the construction funds by state and private sources.
As the government-university partnership grows and expands into the arts and humanities, increasing responsibility is thrust upon both parties to insure university freedom. For its part, the Government must exercise great restraint in the imposition of conditions and regulations. The university can encourage such restraint and maintain its independence in a number of ways. Foremost among measures that insure maximum university independence is the maintenance of excellence in Government-supported programs. Through its review procrdures, the Government participates in this responsibility, yet the greatest burden remains on the university. I shall say more of excellence in a moment.
Another area of university responsibility lies in the expenditure of Government funds. In this connection, government provisions have been written with liberality and under considerable influence from the universities. In effect, the universities have taken upon themselves most of the burden of responsibility; therefore, indifference in performance would be especially unfortunate. It is particularly important that appropriate administrative and academic officials be involved in continuing, substantive administration of Federal funds. Review procedures must be rigorous and must not be allowed to decay into routine formalities. Consistent care must be exercised to be sure Federal funds are expended for the purposes for which they are intended. Clearly, significant weakness in such procedures could inject unnecessary trauma into the Federaluniversity partnership.
The growth of the cooperation between the Federal Government and the universities will place some additional responsibilities on this partnership. McGeorge Bundy raised an important point at the meeting of the American Council of Education last year. Bundy recommended that universities become more candid and less reticent about disclosing their financial affairs. If it develops that our universities will have no choice but to seek large increases in levels of support for both private and public institutions, then, as Dean Bundy says, these same "institutions will be held to new level of accountability by Federal and state agencies of government working at a new level of sophistication."
I have another suggestion about the good health of the university-government alliance, as Federal funds support new academic fields. The Congress and the Executive branches of the Government have a need and a right to review programs supported by tax monies. They take this task seriously, as they should, and as we all insist they do in all programs-except possibly our own. In the early days of government support of sciences, it was not uncommon for some of us scientists to be indignant about reporting to or appearing before a Congressional committee. Most of us learned early that this was a counterproductive attitude. The university and the professor have a great deal to gain by welcoming such interest. It is, indeed, an unprecedented opportunity to inform and educate sincerely interested, responsible and influential individuals.
Obviously, large-scale dependence of universities on Federal funds has its hazards. I believe that this should be a cause of concern but not of fear. I believe that the government-university partnership can be managed so as not to be subversive of university freedoms. But let me emphasize this: the greatest responsibility for keeping our universities free and self-reliant will rest with the universities themselves with their faculties, their administrators, their trustees. The universities must see to it that their own standards of excellence and freedom are maintained in a period of growing relationship with government. From my knowledge of government I feel strongly that this is possible if the universities adopt and maintain a courageous, firm, vigilant, reasonable and just attitude toward this partnership.
I believe the thrust of my remarks thus far indicates I am convinced that the graduate schools, with government help, have an enormous challenge ahead of them in performing their primary functions. Those functions are, of course, to expand knowledge and to equip our best young people for creative work in a wide variety of disciplines. Under the best circumstances, these challenges test the finest academic minds of our country. The government-university partnership has succeeded in this effort beyond the fondest imaginings of a generation ago, and our institutions are in many ways the envy of the world. In the achievement of this success, our universities have been the irreplaceable source of the skilled people now coping with the difficult socio-economic and technological problems our society faces. The need for a continuing and expanding flow of sophisticated knowledge and skills is, and will be, very great. The substantive challenge to the universities in the future can be defined in terms, above all, of maintaining quality in the face of rising multitudes of students and the strain on academic resources.
The quantity side of the equation is indicated by the recent report of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, headed by Clark Kerr of the University of California. The Commission, using figures from the U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, traces and projects the growth of higher education. In 1956 there were about three million students in the colleges and universities; this year the number is about six million (on a full-time equivalent basis), and in 1976 there will be some eight to nine million students pounding on the doors. While this new flood of students calls for establishing at least two new colleges (in large part, junior colleges) per week in the next several years, according to the Commission, in the academic year 1966–67 only 72 new institutions of higher learning were established in the United States. Provision is needed by 1976 for 75 percent more medical students and 60 percent more candidates for the Ph.D.
As for quality, the core of my own philosophy continues to coincide with the statement by the President's Science Advisory Committee on Scientific Progress, the Universities and the Federal Government, issued in November 1960, during my period of service on PSAC. In this report the Panel on Basic Research and Graduate Education, of which I was chairman, stated: “In science, the excellent is not just better than the ordinary; it is almost all that matters. It is therefore fundamental that this country should energetically sustain and strongly reinforce first-rate work where it now exists."
The Panel report also speaks to a parallel challenge that will remain with us in the next decade, and I quote : "It is of equal importance to increase support for rising centers of excellence.” This is required not only to solve the problem of quantity and quality of educated men and women but also to meet the growing requirement of a government run by representatives that Federal support for higher education must pay some attention to geographical distribution. A number of government agencies have adopted funding policies designed to create such new centers of excellence. For example, the National Science Foundation has its University Science Development Program, and the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Institutes of Health, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Defense have programs designed to advance this concept.
There are, of course, problems in meeting this challenge. We need to establish the needed centers of excellence in new geographical areas without tearing down established ones in the face of our increasingly difficult budget situation. We must prevent the competition for establishing new centers in various regions from deteriorating into a science pork barrel. Considerable wisdom and restraint, combined with new money, will be required so that national support for excellent yet reasonably distributed graduate institutions does not degenerate into the parochial situation where no congressional district is complete without a post office, a reclamation project and a new science laboratory.
I would also like to repeat another fundamental contention of this Panel report because of its special relevance to this audience and because I feel that it is so important to emphasize in connection with current discussions concerning the role of graduate schools. The Panel stated and emphasized that the process of graduate education and the process of basic research belong together at every possible level. The two kinds of activity reinforce each other in a great variety of ways and each is weakened without the other. I believe that this concept is basic to the graduate school.
At the beginning, I said I would speak on a subject that relates to the turmoil now afflicting some of the campuses of the nation. As we face the test of maintaining quality for the multitudes, the challenge to the graduate schools is magnified by the problem of turbulence on some of the campuses, within which there appears to be a struggle over the primary responsibility of, as well as for, higher education. This turbulence has provoked considerable thought.
The seriousness of this conflict was underlined by Dr. Frederick Seitz, in his role as President of the National Academy of Sciences, who said in university lectures and in the autumn 1968 issue of the American Scientist that prior to 1960 he would have expected, and I quote in part, “the universities to become in effect as centrally important to our society as cities, being the major trading centers of our intellectual and innovative life.” Professor Seitz adds that in the light of the present social struggle on the campus, and in the event of its prolongation, he has significant doubts about this outcome. Professor Seitz continues, and I quote, “The universities are poorly equipped to maintain their productivity in both breadth and depth as they attempt to cope with this complex struggle.” Professor Seitz speculates on, although he does not advocate, a variety of results of this struggle, if it continues indefinitely. One pattern might resemble some European forms: the universities may turn into extensions of secondary schools in which basic disciplines are taught and rudimentary experience is gained in the research process; and the advanced schools would be detached or new institutions established to provide protection against campus turbulence. A less radical outcome, according to Professor Seitz, might be a pattern of academic institutions to induce selective specialization on campuses in order to permit like minds to flock together. Still another alternative, he foresees, is the development of universities specializing in graduate work, much as the medieval Italian universities did.
The genius of the American university and its superiority over the European system, in the view of many scholars, lies in its breadth, its integration under one roof of the diverse disciplines of learning and research. The fragmentation of the universities would have, I believe, damaging consequences for education and for society at large. Fragmentation would exacerbate the two-culture syndrome to which C. P. Snow has called attention; our need is for unity rather than isolation. It is not beyond imagining that liberal arts universities oriented primarily to social problem-solving would suffer in financial support, with subsequent reductions in the quality of the advanced institutes, which would already be risking much from the inherent dangers of isolation and narrowness. As an educator and as a participant in some of the policies supporting Federal aid to higher education, I find no merit in policies that would lead to dismemberment of the universities.
I would not have you think these views suggest that I believe in ivory towerism. I am one of thousands of members of the academic community, including many in the audience, whose work refutes the notion that the university has been remote from the world in recent years or that it can be in the future. In a wide variety of roles and at many levels of social organization, academic people contribute their knowledge and energies to the solutions of social and technical problems. In my case, I am on leave from the University of California as professor of chemistry. For these past eight years, as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, my major concerns have included efforts to provide adequate sources of energy for a highly technological energy-consuming world of the future, and to find the means for establishing a stable peace.
Surely the universities should be, as they are and have been, involved in the solution of society's problems. Indeed since the Federal Government has basic responsibilities for such solutions, the Federal-university partnership appropriately strengthens the direct coupling of the universities to social issues. By its nature the university has unique knowledge and resources to contribute. To