respects coherent, 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 from the health and welfare functions, involving a significant shift in the philosophy underlying the existing Department of Health, Education, and Welfare?

In summary, it is my conclusion 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 and 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.

Some examples of the problems that must be faced if centralization in a department or agency is chosen as the route are given in concluding sections of the additional paper which I have submitted to the subcommittee.

(The document submitted for the record is as follows:)

SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS OF SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC SCIENCE

(By Ivan L. Bennett, Jr., M.D., Director, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York)

SUMMARY

Developments over the past five years make advisable a series of changes in the administration of academic science:

-In 1968, the Federal Government provided $2.3 billion for academic science and $2.1 billion to colleges and universities for support of colleges and universities totally. The non-science component is not only growing rapidly but is also increasingly interwoven with academic science programs, thus creating an important new interface between Federal programs for academic science and for general support of higher education. -Although state, local, and private funding of both general expenses and academic science of colleges and universities will continue to expand, the Federal Government's role in both areas is becoming more significant, and this will generate important questions of policy and of organizational capabilities to define and answer questions of policy.

-Federal support for academic science has leveled off sharply, resulting in serious short-run underfinancing (particularly for NSF), and cutbacks in research in universities. Unpredictability and instability of funding are incompatible with long-range national goals, and with missions of Federal agencies, which depend on academic science.

-An accretion of Federal rules and practices among the several supporting agencies has created administrative machinery that is needlessly complicated and expensive both for the Federal Government and universities. The following measures are recommended as an approach to the long-range solution of these problems:

A. Establish More Stable Funding for Academic Science

BOB and OST should prepare, in consultation with the agencies, a new "three-year indicative plan" for Federal financing of academic science. This would tend to (1) increase the predictability of funding, (2) ensure more

careful considerations of the total effect of agency budgets on academic science, (3) provide better guidelines for agencies, and (4) provide a better vehicle for communicating with Congress.

The budget of the National Science Foundation for the next fiscal year should, as a minimum, be set at a level sufficient to maintain activity in academic science at the 1968 level, allowing for increases in real cost.

Serious consideration should be given to persuading the relevant Congressional committees that NSF should be placed on a three-year authorization and appropriation cycle.

B. Continue to Strengthen the Existing System of Pluralistic Support

The existing system under which mission-oriented agencies finance academic research which is related to and a part of their missions is sound and should be continued.

To compensate for the rigidities and imbalances which the existing system imposes upon both the universities and the Federal agencies, additional institutional support for academic science should be provided in the budgets of NSF and NIH.

Over the long range, NSF should be established as a prime source (at least a third) of Federal funds for academic science.

C. Improve the Administration of Federal Academic Science Programs

Issue a Presidential directive emphasizing the responsibility of BOB to reduce administrative inconsistencies, to establish sound adminstrative guides, and develop measures to minimize the short-run effects of reductions in funds for academic science on colleges and universities.

D. Improve the Organization of the Executive Office for Science and Education There is now no effective focus of responsibility in the Executive Branch for long-range policy strategy and for short-range problem solving for academic science, and no place in the Executive Branch where issues involving the interrelationships between education and science and technology can be discussed and resolved effectively on a continuing institutionalized basis.

Leadership and coordination in these areas can be effective only if exercised in the Executive Office.

There is recommended the establishment by statute of a new Council of Advisers on Education and Science to provide a continuing institutionalized strong point in the Executive Office to help the President with matters involving education, science and technology, and their interrelationships.

In view of the complexities introduced by placing all higher education within the purview of such a Council, a less comprehensive, but more coherent and probably more feasible alternative would be the establishment of a statutory Council of Science Advisers which would have all of the current functions of OST, plus a strong focus on the interrelationships between science and technology, and higher education. A less effective but acceptable alternative would be to add responsibility for the science-education interface to the mission of OST by Executive Order.

E. Consider the Establishment of a New Cabinet Department of Higher Education and Science

It is probable that the growth and increasing complexity of Federal programs for education, science, and technology will eventually require a new Cabinet department, and a large-scale shift of functions. This possibility is of such significance that it should be given further serious study but the evidence at present does not warrant the creation of a new agency at this time.

This paper is intended to

INTRODUCTION

Outline briefly the evolution of the present system of Federal support for scientific research in the country's academic institutions.

Pinpoint some of the weaknesses in the system which have come to light during the recent period of budgetary stringency.

Call attention to the growing importance of the interpenetration of academic research, science education, and higher education in general and urge that new policies consider all three of these areas of public responsibility. Detail some of the present and future effects of operating the present

system of support during a time when sizeable annual increments in funding are not forthcoming.

Offer some suggestions for restructuring the system so as to make it more effective in enabling the Federal agencies to accomplish their assigned missions and in achieving balanced programs of support for the nation's institutions of higher learning in their programs of education and in the generation of new knowledge.

The opinions expressed are personal and result from experiences on the "outside," as both recipient of Federal funds for research and as a University administrator, and on the "inside" as a member of the Office of Science and Technology.

This discussion is limited to academic science and touches on applied science, development and technology only in passing. The recommendations were discussed thoroughly with federal officials from nearly every federal agency with a major program of support for academic science during the previous administration and all agreed with them (several of these individuals are no longer in Federal service and their agreement was personal, not a result of any formal agency clearance).

It is hoped that this presentation will stimulate additional discussion of federal support of academic science from a viewpoint and in a context somewhat different from those that have dominated most prior considerations of this important subject.

1. DEFINITIONS

Academic Science encompasses research in the physical, biological, engineering, and social sciences which is carried out in the nation's universities and colleges and the related educational programs, predominantly at the graduate and professional level. Some of this research can be classified as basic1 and some as applied. A small proportion can properly be termed technological development.3 The determination of the exact proportion of each of these three subclasses of scientific investigation within the total mix of academic science is largely a semantic problem and is unimportant in terms of overall policy. The main point is that, as a result of more than two decades of experience, academic science has come to include a varied array of scientific activities, concentrated in the basic sector, that can be carried out willingly, appropriately, and effectively in institutions of higher learning. About 10% of the total federal budget for R and D now supports academic science and 6% of the nation's total funding of R and D goes to colleges and universities (excluding federal contract research centers). It is worth noting that academic science is responsible for at least 2 of the nation's basic research, the most innovative segment of our overall scientific effort, often referred to as its "cutting edge." Generally speaking, however, the nature, methodologies, and objectives of academic research are not qualitatively different from those of research performed in many non-profit institutes, in municipal, state, and federal laboratories, or in industrial laboratories. It is not any peculiarity of scientific content that prompts consideration of academic science as an entity. Rather, it is the association of this portion of the nation's research endeavor with institutions of higher learning and its resulting effects, direct and indirect, upon higher education which create problems of particular concern to the federal government and the nation.

Graduate education is the culmination of the formal process of preparing individuals for teaching and for research and technical endeavor at the frontier of expanding knowledge and technological innovation. The graduate and professional schools of the U.S. now include a predominant portion of the intellectual forces that assure this country a continuing capability to advance knowledge, to extend the base for technological progress, to influence the social, cultural, and economic quality of national life, and to exert intelligent and effective leadership in world affairs.

1 Systematic, intensive study directed toward fuller understanding of the subject under consideration in which the primary aim of the investigator is an increase in scientific knowledge without regard to any utility of the knowledge gained.

2 Systematic, intensive study directed toward fuller understanding of the subject under consideration in which the primary aim of the investigator is praetical use or application of the scientific knowledge gained.

3 Systematic use of scientific knowledge for the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development or prototypes processes. Quality control and routine product testing are not included.

Graduate and professional programs are far more expensive for universities than is undergraduate education. Because they are so dependent upon federal funding, they are the first that have been seriously affected by limitation of resources from the national government.

Training to the doctoral (Ph. D., M.D., etc.) level no longer suffices to launch most scientists upon their careers as fully qualified researchers or teachers. Postdoctoral training is becoming a critical component of higher education. This level is not yet fully embedded in the academic structure and it is now abundantly clear that federal budgetary structures strike hardest at this important new area of advanced education in the sciences.

II. THE SOURCES OF IMMEDIATE CONCERN

At this stage in the evolution of federal programs of support for research in the country's universities and colleges, the following aspects of the situation are giving rise to problems:

4

Federal funds now support more than 75% of all academic research. The vast majority of this money ($1.235 billion of a total of $1.455 billion in FY 1967) is provided by the various "mission agencies" as "project" or "program" grants or contracts for research in specific fields by individual faculty members or faculty groups of an institution. Each agency supports research in those areas (including mission-related basic research) that are relevant to the accomplishment of its overall mission. Judgments of relevance have been rather broad in the past, and most basic research in the universities is supported by such agencies as NIH, NASA, DOD and AEC. However, tightening of budgets has tended to lead to reassessment and stricter definition of "relevancy" both by the agencies and by Congress. Only about 15% ($220 million of a total of $1.455 billion in FY 1967) of support now comes from NSF, the one agency authorized to support the advancement of knowledge in all fields of science, without regard to relevance to the missions of federal agencies such as DOD, AEC, PHS, or Agriculture. The financial inability of NSF to play a more significant role in funding university research at a time when mission agency funds are dwindling and the range of their support among fields is narrowing poses severe and unprecedented problems in maintaining a balanced national development of the various branches of science for the future.

The growth of support for science from multiple federal sources is posing increasing difficulties for the nation's institutions of higher learning in planning for all of their functions and activities.

Institutions of higher learning are hard-pressed to sustain all of their activities in the face of rising enrollments increasing difficulties in securing additional funds from public and private sources, resistance to increasing tuition, demands that they undertake additional important service activities for localities, states and the nation, and rising costs.

Academic research is so intimately interwoven with graduate and professional education in science and engineering that it is virtually impossible to consider federal support of research or federal support of graduate and professional education in isolation because any significant change in one is immediately reflected in the other.

III. THE EXPANDING FEDERAL ROLE IN FINANCING HIGHER EDUCATION

Federal funds for research have become an important component of the overall financing of higher education in science (with the significance of the funds varying widely from institution to institution) because the graduate and professional schools are the source of the scientific and technical manpower so essential to the entire nation as well as to federal programs.

a USDA, Commerce, HUD, Interior, Labor, State, DOT, AID, and VA.

Total national expenditures for higher education have increased by more than 60% over the past five years-from $11.2 billion in 1963-64 to $18.3 billion in 1967-68. Federal funds for higher education rose during this period from $3.2 to $4.4 billion (Table II). The proportion of total expenditures accounted for by federal funds more than tripled-from 7 to 24%-between 1939-40 and 196768 (Table I). By 1980 the Federal Government may be supplying as much as 40% of the total cost of higher education in the United States. The U.S. Commissioner of Education recently predicted a total public outlay of $100 billion for all education by 1980 (about twice the present amount) and said that the Federal Government "obviously must bear a much more substantial share of the cost than at present." (Reported in N.Y. Times, July 9, 1969).

TABLE 1.-SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Source: Office of Education, DHEW, 1979-80 figures from American Council on Education. Note: Figures on inome for higher education differ slightly according to various sources. The Office of Education figures used here have been challenged, but the general trends that are important to this discussion exist no matter what statistical source is used.

Over the past five years, both the science and non-science components of federal expenditures in the nation's colleges and universities have risen substantially, but the non-science component has increased most rapidly. While federal academic science funds were the predominant source of federal money for higher education in 1963-64, by 1967-68 the non-science funds were almost equal to the science funds (Table II).

TABLE II.-RELATIVE INCREASES IN FUNDS FOR UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES, 1963-64 AND 1967-68

The major trends in financing of higher education are very clear. The total cost of higher education is rising rapidly. The component covered by government (federal, state and local) is increasing. The federal academic science component is rising less rapidly than was true over the past decade, but funds for academic science are now about 15% of the total funds spent for higher education. Academic science funds are more than all other federal expenditures for higher education but non-science federal expenditures are rising rapidly, and will soon exceed the science expenditures. In terms of national policy, federal academic science expenditures must be considered in the light of their general effects on colleges and universities as well as in terms of their effects in the realm of science.

The primary product of institutions of higher learning is highly educated people. The nation will continue to need, and the citizenry will continue to demand, an increasing flow of people trained to the undergraduate and graduate levels.