SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS,
THE UNIVERSITIES, AND, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT


Statement by the
PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
November 15, 1960


For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents








,,-r.-J 'TiD  BY THE
Url i u'  i AT.S OF AMERICA
CONTENTS
Page
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT --- —--- ------------          v
PART ONE.     THE GENERAL PROBLEM ----. --- —-----         1
PART TWO.     SOME SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS --- —---         14
PART THREE. RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------            28
Members of the Panel on Basic Research and Graduate Education —  32
Members of the President's Science Advisory Committee --- —-_-  33


m








STATEMENT
BY THE PRESIDENT
This report is part of a continuing study by my Science Advisory Committee of ways in which the Federal Government can best assure the strength
and progress of American science, one of our essential resources for national
security and welfare. I hope it will be favorably received and widely studied
by everyone in our national community concerned with the advancement
of scientific knowledge through basic research and with the education of
young scientists.
I call particular attention to the conclusion of the Science Advisory Committee that the process of basic scientific research and the process of graduate
education in universities must be viewed as an integrated task if the nation is
to produce the research results and the new scientists that will maintain the
leadership of American science. In this great endeavor, the partnership
between the Federal Government and the nation's universities will assume
growing importance in the future.
THE WHITE HOUSE
November 17, 1960.


v








PART ONE


THE GENERAL PROBLEM
I. Introductory-The Focus of the Report
This paper is a brief statement on a large set of problems: the problems
which center on the advancement of science by basic research, and the making of scientists by graduate education. This is only one part of the complex
world of modern American science, but it is a critically important one.
We have tried to state clearly the fundamental character of the environment
which is required for scientific progress and for the making of good young
scientists. We then consider the way in which these requirements should
affect the policies of both the Federal Government and the universities,
which are today the two forces in our society whose actions most affect the
health and strength of basic research and the training of scientists.
We find much both in the government and in the academic community
which needs improvement, but we have made no attempt to prescribe detailed policies for either party. The last twenty years have seen a remarkable growth of support of many kinds for basic research and graduate education, and the role of the Federal Government has on balance been highly
constructive. On the whole our universities are much stronger today in
science then they were a generation ago. We have great confidence that
energetic leadership and constant effort can find good answers to the practical problems of the future. A short statement like this may hope to contribute not specific solutions, but rather some general ideas about the nature
of the task, and the principles that should guide us in working on it.
II. The Background: The Urgent Need for Scientific Progress
Both the security and the general welfare of the American people
urgently require continued, rapid, and sustained growth in the strength of
American science. Other reports of qualified bodies, and earlier reports
of this Committee', have argued in detail the reasons which make this
1 See, for example, Strengthening American Science, a report of the President's
Science Advisory Committee, Washington, 1958; Education for the Age of Science,
Statement by the President's Science Advisory Committee, Washington, May 24,
1959; and Basic Research-A National Resource, A Report by the National Science
Foundation (NSF 57-35). Washington, 1957.


1




growth vital to us all. We believe that most Americans are in favor of
more and better science. In a general way Americans recognize that scientific understanding is at once highly valuable in its own right and quite
indispensable for the sustained progress of a modern industrialized society.
We are proud of our great accomplishments, and we become concerned
whenever it appears that our scientific effort in any field may be second-best.
Most of all we have learned to recognize that the defense and advancement
of freedom require excellence in science and in technology.
But our acceptance of these quite modern ideas does not mean that we
understand fully their consequences for our policy and practice. American
science in the next generation must, quite literally, double and redouble in
size and strength. This means more scientists., better trained, with finer
facilities. Many forces contribute to this urgent need for growth. Our
population is rapidly increasing, so that there are more and more young
people to be taught, and we have nothing like the number of qualified
teachers we need even now. Science itself is expanding so fast that our
efforts would have to be much increased, if we were only to keep up with
its general international momentum. The training of scientists takes longer
than it used to, and the facilities needed in a modern laboratory are usually
much more complex and expensive than those that were needed only a few
years ago. Science and technology today have steadily growing mutual
impact, so that the practical man has need of the closest and most immediate
access to new results in basic science. Thus both science and scientists must
be more and more widely diffused throughout our society. We need more
men doing more things, with more support, in more places. And each. of
these requirements is better measured by multiplication than by addition.
It is the simple truth that if this country is to safeguard its freedom and
harvest the great opportunities of the next generation of science, the level
of its scientific investment must be multiplied and multiplied again.
Yet the right word is investment. What this country spends on excellence
in the sciences is not money gone with the wind. It is money that brings us
handsome returns, and of many kinds. In immediate economic terms the
proposition is clear enough: what we have done in science has brought our
society riches many times greater than what science costs us, and this will
be true as far in the future as we can see. In economic terms, indeed,
scientific investment has quite extraordinary power. Ordinary capital investment puts savings to work on labor-saving machinery that is already
known and understood; the increased wealth produced is what separates
the developed modem society from helpless poverty. But scientific and
technological investments are still more powerful tools, since they invest in
the discovery of what we do not yet understand. We are only just at the
beginning of the use of scientific investment in this large sense, and the
returns it can bring in are literally incalculable. Simply in terms of economic self-interest our proper course is to increase our investment in science
just as fast as we can, to a limit not yet in sight.
2




But we should not emphasize only the material returns of scientific investment. Science yields a return also in the quality and humanity of our
civilization. Science is not merely an inducement to progress, it is an affirmation of man's respect for nature and a way to the fulfillment of some of
his highest capacities. Science is enriching, but at its best it is much more:
it is enlarging to the spirit. This higher value is one we should never leave
out of account in our desire to reassure ourselves that science "pays."
Indeed any shortsighted calculation of return-on-investment is likely to be
self-defeating. Scientific progress does not occur in any neatly predictable
way; nor can we be sure ahead of time which research project is likely to
have particular consequences for our prosperity or security. Moreover
scientific discovery is not easy, and many experiments fail. Nothing could
be more unwise than an effort to assign priorities or judge results in basic
research on any narrow basis of immediate gain. It is the advance of
science as a whole on which we must rely, for material as well as other
returns.
Much of this. basic argument for the strengthening of American science
applies equally to other fields of learning. While this report centers on the
needs of science, we repudiate emphatically any notion that scientific research and scientific education are the only kinds of learning that matter
to America. The responsibility of this Committee is limited to scientific
matters, but obviously a high civilization must not limit its efforts to science
alone. Even in the interests of science itself it is essential to give full value
and support to the other great branches of man's artistic, literary, and scholarly activity. The advancement of science must not be accomplished by
the impoverishment of anything else, and the life of the mind in our society
has needs which are not limited by the particular concerns which belong to
this Committee and this report.
We do not, in this report, attempt to consider what direct responsibility
and interest the government has for strengthening basic research and graduate education outside the sciences. This is a subject which deserves careful
attention, but it is beyond our mission. What we can say, however, is what
earlier reports of this Committee have regularly emphasized, that neither
the government nor the universities should conduct the support of scientific
work in such a way as to weaken the capacity of American education to
meet its responsibilities in other areas. The costs of scientific progress must
not be paid by diverting resources from other great fields of study which
have their own urgent need for growth.
III. Basic Research and Graduate Education-They Go Best Together
Science is a large field, and in this report we want to concentrate attention
on two parts of it: the part in which research is pursued with the purpose
of advancing scientific understanding, and the part in which young college
graduates are helped to become scientists. Our shorthand terms for these
two activities are "basic research" and "graduate education."


576098-60      2


3




Basic research is the cutting of paths through the unknown. As most of
us know today, it is the pacesetter for technology, and the raw material of
invention. Its growth can be assisted, and its general value can be confidently asserted, but it depends, in the end, on the imaginative powers and
scientific skills of the men who do it. Basic research is as hard as it is exciting, and while it contributes enormously to the national welfare, what
usually moves the scientist is not so much this practical consequence of his
labor as the simple but powerful urge to know how nature works. A free
society can honor the scientist's curiosity without forgetting his social value.
Because basic research is aimed at understanding rather than at practical results, the layman sometimes assumes that it is entirely abstract and
theoretical, and that only when it becomes a matter of industrial development does it "come down to earth." This is a false notion, and its falsity
becomes increasingly clear with time. Indeed, one striking characteristic
of our scientific age has been the disappearance of the barriers between
pure and applied science. Not only are we finding important technological
applications for mathematical and scientific knowledge which was formerly thought of as abstract and "useless," but the advance of technology
has both generated new problems in pure science and provided new tools
with which such science can be advanced more effectively. The development of the techniques and hardware for radar during the war, for
example, gave the physicist and the chemist a new and refined tool for
investigating the properties of solids and of chemical compounds. Conversely, the extensive use of this tool in basic science has opened the way
to entirely new techniques in electronics. Similarly, the development of
large-scale electronic computers has led engineers to find practical uses
for some of the most abstruse and "impractical" branches of higher mathematics, while the understanding of the techniques of using computers has,
on the other hand, given us deeper insight into some aspects of the behavior of complex biological and social systems. Basic and applied science
today are distinguished less by method and content than by motivation.
Part of the strength of American science stems from close intellectual intercourse between basic and applied scientists. Very often, indeed, the same
man can be both "pure scientist" and "engineer," as he works on different problems or on different parts of one problem. We do not believe
in any artificial separation between basic and applied research or between
science and engineering. The fact that a scientific advance is useful does
not make it unscientific.
Graduate education for scientists is usually seen as what comes after
the B.A. and before the Ph.D. For us it is this, but also more, and in our
view any definition in terms of an interval between two degrees obscures
much more than it clarifies. We are using the term here to mean that
part of education which seeks to turn a young man or woman into a scientist. By the word "scientist" we mean someone who is fit to take part in


4




basic research, to learn without a teacher, to discover and attack significant problems not yet solved, to show the nature of this process to otherssomeone, in short, who is equipped to spend a lifetime in the advancement
of science, to the best of his ability.
It is a fundamental contention of this report that the process of graduate education and the process of basic research belong together at every
possible level. We believe that the two kinds of activity reinforce each
other in a great variety of ways, and that each is weakened when carried
on without the other. We think also that this proposition has substantial
implications for the policy of both the Federal Government and the universities. Because the proposition is so central to our argument, we must
try to demonstrate it thoroughly.
In one sense, it is almost self-evident. If graduate education aims at
making scientists, and if inquiry into what is unknown is the moving principle
of all science, it is not surprising that experience of this kind of inquiry
should be essential in graduate education. Clearly such experience is best
obtained in association with others who have had it or are having it themselves. The apprentice scientist learns best when he learns in an atmosphere
of active research work. It is true that only a minority of those who receive
a Ph. D. in science continue their subsequent careers in basic research. The
majority go on to applied research in industry or to teaching in college
where research opportunities are limited. (Even in the universities many
scientists are not active in research.) Nevertheless, such experience as all
graduate students should have with basic research is highly important. In
all forms of scientific work a man's effectiveness is multiplied when he has
that depth of understanding of his subject that comes only with the experience of working at a research problem.
But if all this is so, it does not seem to be fully recognized in the standard
practices of most universities and Federal agencies. For as we are describing it, the process of graduate education depends on "research" just as much
as upon "teaching"-indeed the two are essentially inseparable-and there
is a radical error in trying to think of them as different or opposite forms of
activity. From the point of view of the graduate student, the teaching and
the research of his professor are, at the crucial point which defines the whole,
united. What he learns is not opposite from research; it is research. Of
course many necessary parts of a scientist's education have little to do with
research, and obviously also for many professors there must be a gap between
teaching a standard graduate course and working at one's own problems.
Moreover, many good teachers-men who keep up with the new work in
their subject and communicate its meaning clearly to their students-are
not themselves engaged in research. Yet we insist on the central point; the
would-be scientist must learn what it is like to do science, and this, which
is research, is the most important thing he can be "taught."


5




So far we have been arguing that graduate education requires the experience of basic research. What happens when we turn the matter around,
and ask whether basic research must be carried on only in conjunction with
graduate education? Here the answer cannot be so categorical. Though
our general conviction is that a fundamentally reciprocal relation does exist,
it is clear that research of outstanding quality is often carried on in isolation
from teaching and indeed quite outside the universities. While the great
teacher of graduate students is almost invariably a research man too, there
are many notable scientists who have as little as possible to do with teaching.
First-rate industrial and governmental laboratories with commitments to
specific programs are necessarily separated in some measure from teaching
of a conventional sort. Thus basic research can be and is carried on without
much connection to graduate education.
Yet in the long run it is dangerous to separate research in any field entirely
from education. If a research field is to be attractive to good young men, it
ordinarily needs roots in the universities. The pool of graduate students in
our universities is the pool from which the scientists of the future must come.
These young people do not easily study what is not taught; they do not often
learn the meaning of research which does not exist in their environment. A
scientific field which has no research life in the universities is at a grave
disadvantage in recruiting new members. As learning and teaching require
research, so research, in the end, cannot be sustained without teaching.
Hence it is always important for research installations to maintain effective
connections with students. In a later section we note some of the consequences of this rule for both the government and the universities.
Meanwhile it is worth noting that the practical need for connection between a research installation and the source of scientists is not the only
reason for doubting the value of any sharp separation between research and
teaching. There is also the fact that in the wider sense all first-rate research
laboratories are permeated by an atmosphere of learning. Successful research can be defined, indeed, as learning what has not been taught before,
and a good scientist is constantly learning from others as a part of his campaign to find out something on his own. It is not an accident, therefore, that
in any outstanding industrial or governmental laboratory the atmosphere
is reminiscent of the university. In such laboratories, moreover, the scientist's concern with "research for its own sake" is often very strong; much
excellent basic work is done in such laboratories, in support of general
programs of applied research.2  We believe that research, learning, and
teaching are deeply connected processes which should be kept together
wherever possible. Not all basic research should be-or could be-performed in our universities, but where it is done separately, special efforts
should be made to take advantage of its educational value.
2 That basic research is an important element in the quality of any mission-oriented
laboratory in the government was argued earlier in Strengthening American Science,
pp. 18, 32. Nothing in this report should be taken as a modification of that position.
6




IV. The Role of the Federal Government
Basic research and graduate education, together, are the knotted core of
American science, and they will grow stronger together or not at all. Let
us now consider the consequences of this principle, first for the government
and then for the universities. The Federal Government, by its varied missions and the size of its financial commitments, is the most powerful single
force in this whole field, while the universities are the natural holders and
custodians of the knotted core. Both have done much to strengthen, and
something to weaken the common enterprise in recent decades. Both must
do better in the years ahead.
The Federal Government, through many agencies, is now by far the
most important source of funds for research in the universities. In 1957 -58 the Federal share in all such research was about 70%. This astonishing
expansion in Federal activity is the product of several forces, all of them
initially related to specific needs of specific branches of the government.
The two most important purposes of the government in supporting research have been defense and health; more than 3/4ths of all Federal funds
for such research in 1959 came from agencies with one or the other of
these two missions.
The government's first interest in its relations with universities was to
obtain the practical advantages of research. Historically, the earliest largescale relations were those in the field of agriculture, which connected the
government to the land-grant institutions. Then during World War II,
American science conclusively demonstrated its practical value, and in the
years after the war, first the defense agencies and then those related to
health developed large-scale research relations with the universities. At
first these relations were based on contracts allowing compensation for
services rendered. Government contracts have supported a great deal of
research of high quality; they have, for example, paid for almost all of our
remarkable post-war effort in nuclear physics. Nor has this support been
limited narrowly to the fields with high practical significance or political
appeal.
Yet in its essence the concept of "purchase of services," which is implied in any government contract, was and is a doubtful one, when applied
to basic research. Basic research, almost by definition, has no clearly
predictable practical result, and so the Congress and the Federal agencies
involved have had to interpret very broadly the notion of "value received"
in return for sums spent on research contracts. But conversely the support of university research has been hampered by contract rules which
strictly limit the ways in which universities can be compensated for their
costs. The whole framework is somewhat arbitrary and unrealistic. The
wonder is that it works as well as it does.
From the point of view of this report, a particularly grave difficulty
in the support of research by government contracts is that by its very


7




nature support given through such a mechanism tends to separate research
from education. In the research contract the one recognized "product"
is "research;" yet if the government has an interest in basic research in
any given field, it inevitably has a related interest in graduate education
in the same field. Thus the government is almost forced to work against
its own interest as well as that of the university when it uses an instrument
whose formal concern is with research results alone. It is greatly to the
credit of many able public servants that this inherent difficulty has often
been overcome by imaginative and farsighted administration. Many graduate students have been helped by contract funds in a fashion that is both
constructive and proper. But the research contract, with its concept of
services purchased, remains an imperfect instrument. Even for the advancement of basic research as such it is awkward, because first-class
research is really not a service to be contracted for. And for larger purposes it is wholly inadequate.
All government agencies are now empowered to use grants instead of
contracts in supporting basic research; the National Science Foundation and
the National Institutes of Health, particularly, have used this form extensively for some years. The use of grants sometimes has the regrettable
consequence of failing to provide for the full cost of the research that is
supported, and sometimes the complexities of application and processing for
even a small project grant compare unfavorably with the best practice of
contracting agencies. But on balance and in the long run, the grant is a
better instrument than the contract-it is more consistent with the nature
of basic research.
Grants and contracts are both used to support specific research projects.
This is good, in and of itself-especially when such support is provided, as
it often is, with a minimum of red tape and for broad objectives, with relatively long time-schedules (three-year terms were recommended in an earlier
report). Support of good men or groups in specific projects can be particularly effective in ensuring that excellent scientists and excellent problems are identified wherever they may be. While the process of evaluation
and award is time-consuming both for government officials and for outside
scientists who serve on advisory panels, it is well done, on the whole. But
project support, in and of itself, does not fully meet the needs of the Federal
Government.
We can understand this matter better if we consider for a moment the
Federal Government's larger purposes in relation to basic research and
graduate education. In addition to the research interests of particular
agencies, the government has two other more general responsibilities. One
is its concern for the development of fields of basic and applied science
which may be of general importance for the national security and the general
welfare; the other is its concern for the strength of American science and
higher education as a whole.


8




There are many fields of science in which the United States could well
become stronger and more active, both from the point of view of the national
defense and from that of the public welfare. It is unfortunately not true
that scientists always and automatically sort themselves out into the most
relevant and productive fields of work. Science like any other human activity is subject to the distortion of human frailty, and scientific fashion is
not always sound. Moreover, even when individual scientists spot promising untilled fields (and it is scientists who do spot them) it is often hard to
find funds and facilities for the new undertaking from within hard-pressed
universities.
We think it plain that the Federal Government should act in such areas
of scientific promise. No other agency in our society is responsible for the
national security, and a large field, full of new problems, such as space science or materials research, is potentially vital to our safety. No other agency
in our society is responsible for the general welfare, and all major fields without exception can be expected to contribute to the general welfare. No
other agency, finally, has the financial strength to provide the necessary
support-and incentive-for work in expensive new undertakings. It can
be said without qualification that our society will be endangered and impoverished if these things are not done, and that only the Federal Government can take the leadership to get them done. We do not mean, again,
that only Federal action will be needed; we do mean that it must play a
large initiating and sustaining role.
When we construe the matter in this way, it becomes clear that no narrow
or single-instrument method of action will serve the government's purposes.
For example, if oceanography is urgently important (as it is), if good
oceanographers are scarce (as they are), and if oceanographic facilitiesespecially modern sea-going vessels-are almost nonexistent (also the case),
the Federal Government cannot discharge its responsibilities by signing a
research contract with any one institution. It has to look at the whole
subject and all its needs. It may be more important to buy some university
a ship-as the National Science Foundation has recently done-than to
execute a research contract for work under one of its professors. It may
also be important to offer fellowships or to assist in the initial expense of a
new set of courses. The government will not be able to serve its own interest if it cannot put its money freely wherever it sees an urgent need.
In speaking of new fields of need and opportunity, we are seeking to
emphasize the things that now need doing. We could also call attention
to the many things that have already been done, above and beyond the
standard research contract. The Federal Government, has, of course, already built major research facilities when no one else could-most notably in
the field of nuclear physics. It has also begun to make grants for research
facilities as well as for research-most notably in the field of health. The
National Science Foundation, with the broadest charter of any agency in
the field, has granted fellowships both directly to students and indirectly


9




through universities, and recently it has planned to make unrestricted research grants to institutions receiving funds on a project basis from its
hands. Nor should we neglect the imaginative use of training grants in
medicine and health, the fellowship program of the Atomic Energy Commission, or the special help made possible by the National Defense Education
Act. Still all of these are limited ad hoc programs which only partially
meet the government's own interest in graduate education and basic research; we have hoped, by discussing a new topic like oceanography, to show
how general and unlimited that interest can be.
The government has one still greater interest in these matters. It is,
quite simply, that university science should be as strong as possible. This
blunt statement does not arise from sentimental affection, or from professional affiliation, though most of us must confess to both. It is rather that
the function of the universities is one of absolutely critical importance to the
national welfare. As our scientific efforts have expanded in many industries
and government installations, the universities have naturally lost their near
monopoly on scientific work. But it is essential that this process should not
go too far. For the universities are the source of tomorrow's scientists, as
they are the natural centers for jointly thriving basic research and graduate
education.
Obviously this proposition has meaning for many others besides the Federal Government. The universities themselves are not without resources,
and they have a particular and urgent obligation to spread the word of their
high mission wherever they have friends who can help. State governments,
graduates, generous private citizens, and foundations all have a part to play
in strengthening the American university. Moreover, as we shall presently
see, the American university has a special opportunity and obligation to see
to it that its responsibility for judgment and leadership in basic research and
graduate education is well discharged.
But when all these things have been said, the first and greatest of responsibilities comes back to the Federal Government. No matter how many
diverse elements of our society may join in their support (and the more the
better), basic research and graduate education are in the end, by their
very nature, a problem for the nation as a whole, and so for the national
government. There is not one physics for California and another for Texas.
A first-rate program in Massachusetts or Connecticut must not be limited
to New Englanders. Science flourishes by honorable rivalry, but not by any
effort to consider only narrow or local interests. Both basic research and
graduate education must be supported in terms of the welfare of society as
a whole. It is in this large sense that the role of the Federal Government
is inevitably central.
The truth is as simple as it is important: Whether the quantity and
quality of basic research and graduate education in the United States will
be adequate or inadequate depends primarily upon the government of the
United States. From this responsibility the Federal Government has no


10




escape. Either it will find the policies-and the resources-which permit
our universities to flourish and their duties to be adequately discharged-or
no one will.
It is much easier to state this general interest of the Federal Government
than it is to delineate its consequences. Indeed, in the largest sense the consequences are too many for numbering, because in essence this general proposition should color every action of every Federal agency in all its dealing
with our universities. With all their irritating faults, universities are essential agencies of our national hopes, and they must be treated accordingly.
V. The Job of the Universities
American universities are far from perfect, and their best spokesmen are
the first to admit it. In a sense they do not have the excuse of government,
which has entered the field only recently; their very reason for being is that
they should support the high purposes we are concerned with here. Basic
research and graduate education-as we have said and all will easily agreeare of the very essence of the fundamental purposes of the American university. Yet many do much too little, and none does all it should, in these
great areas.
In the first place, it is often as hard for the university as for the government to keep it clearly in mind that basic research and scientific education
go together. The first and simplest temptation, we fear, is the neglect of
research. Most American universities have their origin in a public need
for education-for instruction-for teaching-and in most of them there
is still maintained the same artificial and fundamentally wrong division
between research and teaching that bedevils the government's relations with
universities. But while the government finds it easier to pay for research
than for teaching, the university, too often, budgets for teaching as a matter
of course, and for research only when special circumstances permit. The
result is that in all but a few American universities the standard teaching
assignment of the professors (significantly called his "teaching load") is such
as to make it difficult for him to carry on any serious program of investigation of his own.
On the other hand, the university itself sometimes allows favored individuals to play no teaching role whatever, as a means perhaps of attracting
and keeping men of particularly outstanding reputation. The danger in
such a practice is obvious, since it appears to suggest that the very best men
deserve exemption from teaching. While in any individual case such arrangement may be justified, it is of the first importance that universitiesand scientists themselves-should sustain the value of teaching as well as
research. This is not a rigid matter of splitting every man's time in equal
but separate parts. In the best departments there will be men whose time
is mainly on research and men who are mainly teachers, and it is foolish to
hold any individual to any arbitrary standard that cramps his style. What
is essential is that the environment as a whole should be an environment of


576098-60-    3


11




learning, investigation, and teaching-all together. Only too often the
universities fail to understand and support this image of their nature.
More broadly, our universities have been slow in finding effective ways of
encouraging scientific research and training at all the new levels and in all
the new ways which the age of science makes possible. Graduate education
is not as good as it should be. Outmoded rules of study too often impede
the student's access to the experience of modern science. Research programs
are too often kept in isolation from the mainstream of student life. Special
research installations are too often not imaginatively used as a source of
learning and teaching. New fields of study are ignored because they inconveniently cross departmental barriers. Strong understanding of the meaning of the age of science is too rarely found -among university administrators.
The universities themselves have much to do.
Perhaps the most important single task of the universities is to see to it
that their own standards of freedom and excellence are maintained in a
period of growing connection with government. While we do not share the
notion that government money is necessarily subversive of university freedoms, it is obvious that large-scale Federal spending, like any other form of
patronage, has its hazards. In the. record of the last fifteen years, there is
much more ground for hope than for fear, but occasionally government action has distorted the direction of research or unwisely discriminated against
particular scientists on irrelevant grounds. It is to the credit of the government that such cases have been the exception, not the rule, and we commend
the good sense which has led the Administration to oppose discriminatory
and useless affidavits of disbelief as a condition for fellowship aid.
But the first and greatest responsibility for keeping our universities free
and self-reliant rests with the universities themselves-with their faculties,
their administrators, and their trustees. What they do not defend, others
will not find it easy even to understand, while when they are staunch in
their principles and vigilant in their practices, the record suggests that
neither the Federal Government nor any other source of support is an
overwhelming threat to them. Courage and vigilance are essential, but
there is no ground for a timid mistrust of government in and of itself. The
right concept is that of partnership, with each partner respecting the rights
and responsibilities of the other. For this there is need for a constant effort
of communication and understanding, and we repeat that the first responsibility here rests with university people.
Yet the main trouble in the universities is not a failure of understanding
or communication; it is lack of means. Typically the American university
is trying to do too much with too little. Its salaries are low; its teaching
assignments are high; its scientific buildings and equipment are cramped
or out of date or both. Modern science does not flourish in such circumstances. Dedication and talent are still the first requirements for scientific
achievement, but in most branches of science today there is no escape from
the need for expensive facilities and substantial numbers of colleagues. No


12




university in this country today is doing what it should in science; none
could be doing even as much as it is without the Federal support which has
developed in the last fifteen years. Thus partnership between the universities and the national government is the indispensable basis of first-rate
university work in science.
The partnership is a fact. It has done much more good than harm. It
seems certain to grow in importance unless the American people decide to
accept a second-rate standing in terms of power, of comfort, and of knowledge. The broad problem which faces the government and the universities
is to make the partnership fully fruitful. The remainder of this report is
devoted to a number of specific issues on which it seems possible to make useful comments at this time. But particular issues are subject to change from
year to year, and we do not wish to put our main emphasis on any one question in itself. In a sense these comments are illustrative rather than exhaustive or definitive-the main thing, once again, is to think of basic research and graduate education together.


13




PART Two


SOME SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS
I. Excellence Deserves Strong Support
In the advancement of science the best is vastly more important than the
next best. Mediocre research is generally worse than useless, and the same
may probably be said of teaching. It is, therefore, of first importance that
national support for both activities should aim at sustaining and reinforcing
outstanding work wherever it may be found. Both the Federal Government and university administrators should be firm in their support of what is
first rate even when such support requires hard choices.
In this respect, the programs of the government since the war deserve
considerable praise. In its support of basic research, the govermnment has
usually relied on the advisory judgment of respected scientists, and in the
main this advice has ensured that in those areas of research in which Federal support has been available, outstanding men have been able to attract
substantial support. In this respect, the project method of research support has real values which should not be forgotten in our proper concern
for additional methods of action. As Federal activity expands and broader
objectives are included, we should never lose sight of the need for qualitative
judgment. Nor should we ever suppose that those scientific centers which
have achieved outstanding quality are somehow by that reason self-sustaining and free of need.
II. Additional Centers of Excellence are Urgently Needed
Equally with the importance of sustaining what is already outstanding,
we urge the importance for the country of an increase in the number of
universities in which first-rate research and graduate teaching go forward
together. The growth of science requires more places with superior faculties and outstanding groups of students. Existing strong institutions cannot fully meet the nation's future needs. It is true that experience is
casting doubt on some conservative notions about the optimum size of the
university, arid the universities which are already great are larger than they
expected to be ten years ago. But there is a limit to such growth, and we
must hope that where there were only a handful of generally first-rate
academic centers of science a generation ago and may be as many as fifteen
or twenty today, there will be thirty or forty in another fifteen years.


14




Timely and determined support to the rising centers will be repaid many
times over in service to society.
III. Graduate Education Needs Expansion
While we believe that the basic structure of graduate education is sound,
we are sure that university faculties can do much to improve it. We
believe that the most important graduate degree for scientists will continue
to be the Ph. D. Obviously, it is the substance of graduate training and not
the formal title "Ph. D." that counts, but in our opinion there is not much
point in denying the dominance of this particular degree as the outward
symbol of advanced scientific capacity.
As our whole report emphasizes, we believe that graduate education
leading to the Ph. D. should include a genuine experience of research. It
is experience of research that makes a man a scientist. We think this kind
of graduate education is needed not only for those who go on in university
science, but also for college teachers and increasingly for the more important scientific and technological positions in industry and government.
Thus we need more men and women with the advanced training the
Ph. D. symbolizes. No fixed projection of exact numerical needs seems
convincing to us, and there is a sense in which we can always make do with
what we have. But in terms of return on an investment, again, we believe
that a steady and rapid growth in our national output of scientists, in all
fields, will be well worthwhile.
IV. It is Important to Attract a Larger Number of Talented Students to
Science as a Career
If we are to have more good scientists, the first necessity is that more of
our talented young people should want scientific careers. It is here that
our colleges, whether or not they are parts of universities, can contribute
largely. We believe that both colleges and the Federal Government should
give urgent attention to the quality of collegiate instruction in the sciences.
The first and greatest need is to extend to the college the connected concern
with teaching and investigation which we have emphasized throughout.
This does not mean that every college must be a university, or that every
college teacher must be a dedicated research man, but it does mean that
the opportunity and practice of scientific inquiry should be a part of the life
of the college laboratory. This is not an easy goal; even in universities the
teaching of undergraduates is often sharply separated from the research
life of the institution. But once the problem is squarely recognized, much
can be done. Decent salaries, time for research, facilities for good scientific
activity, and modernization of curriculum can all be helpful. Indeed the
short way of saying it is that most of the comments and conclusions we
offer with respect to graduate education can be applied with only moderate
adaptation to scientific work in the undergraduate liberal arts college. We


15




repeat that nothing can do more for the supply of talent to the sciences
than a general renewal of life and energy in collegiate science.3
Other ways and means of strengthening the attraction of science as a
career have been discussed in earlier reports and need only brief reference
here. Exposure to the fascination of science should begin long before
college, and at every level, and it is time for an end to the separation that
has developed between college and university scientists and school teachers.
We enthusiastically commend the steps toward reunion which have recently
been taken by agencies of government, by school teachers, and by university
scientists. There are many urgent reasons for this general course of action,
but one important consequence of a new and lively connection of leading
scientists to what is done at school can be a major reinforcement of the
number of scientists in the next generation.
V. Graduate Education in Science Needs Constant Modernization
Our basic acceptance of the Ph. D. degree does not imply any similar
acceptance of all that is now done in its name. We think it urgent that
graduate education be constantly revised and improved. As science itself
rapidly advances, we need new ways of teaching and learning both traditional and emerging subjects. Many university departments are more rigid
in formal requirements-and more lax in insistence on real achievementthan they ought to be. Many traditional programs for the Ph. D. are now
a poor preparation for serious contemporary research, and too few university scientists have given proper thought to the ways in which the learning
of science can be improved at all levels by imaginative changes of method.
We are at the edge of great advances in our scientific knowledge of what
the process of learning is, and it would be an irony if science itself were
to lag in the application of its own achievements. Fortunately there
appears at present to be a marked revival of interest among scientists in
the improvement of both teaching and learning.
VI. The Financing of Graduate Education Needs Continued and Flexible
Reinforcement
Graduate studies leading to the Ph. D. are very expensive, both for the
university and for the student, and neither party is adequately supported.
Great improvements have occurred in recent years, but a great deal still
needs to be done. Lack of financial means is probably the greatest single
difficulty faced by the American graduate student. It is their lack of means,
for example, that is mainly responsible for the undue length of time so
often consumed in achieving the Ph. D. degree. Too many students simply
3 Of course college education in the liberal arts and sciences has many other
values beyond what we here emphasize; it is only in the present context that we limit
ourselves to the particular and urgent topic of attracting talent to the sciences.


16




cannot find the money for sustained full-time study and drop out, or take
part-time jobs that delay their progress and flatten their spirits.4
Fortunately the general need for improvement in this situation is now
widely recognized. The universities themselves, the major private foundations, and the Federal Government have all taken a hand here. But once
again, because of the size and urgency of the need, we believe that the level
of Federal support should steadily increase.
The best and most direct form of support for graduate education is the
graduate fellowship. The government has a number of such programs,
and on balance they have been highly constructive. We believe that these
programs-and in particular the well-designed and effective fellowship
programs of the National Science Foundation-should be expanded just
as fast as truly promising candidates can be found. A properly designed
fellowship program is highly rewarding in its eventual return on every
dollar invested.
Fellowship programs have another special value in that they can readily
be designed not only to support excellence where it already exists but also
to encourage new centers of outstanding work. When such fellowships are
awarded directly to individuals who are free to work wherever they choose,
the winners do tend, on the whole, to register in departments of established
quality. On the other hand, the establishment of fellowships at a particular promising place can be a powerful reinforcement of its efforts to establish
itself securely. We favor both forms of fellowship, and again we call attention to the use of both by the National Science Foundation. The various
activities of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, especially
the programs of the National Institutes of Health and the provisions of
the National Defense Education Act, also serve both these ends. Thus
our double insistence on the support of existing excellence and the encouragement of new centers has sound precedents.
The natural selection and selective reinforcement which can be supported
by fellowships seem to us to constitute a strong argument for including in
every fellowship a substantial additional grant for the support of the institution itself as well as the graduate student. The cost of graduate education
to the university always far exceeds the tuition charged to the individual,
and therefore university authorities have regularly pointed out that without
a supplementary grant they must expect to "lose money" on each fellowship winner. This in itself may not be a wholly persuasive argument, since
the university's other resources are at least partly aimed at this same educational purpose. But we believe that fellowships are a good instrument for
effective distribution of general support to universities where it will do
the most good. We therefore recommend that as a general rule graduate
4 For extended discussion on this point, the reader is referred to Bernard Berelson's
important study, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGrawHill, 1960).


17




fellowships supported by the Federal Government should include a substantial supplementary grant for the general support of the related work of
the university. Since the average graduate student in science costs his university not less than $3500 a year,5 grants which provide this amount to
the institution would not be excessive. (Where tuition is already covered
by the basic fellowship grant-the usual case-the supplement should of
course be reduced accordingly).
Fellowships are of course not the only means of supporting graduate education. Research projects provide legitimate part-time work for many degree candidates, and in many universities part-time teaching is also an
effective means of serving the interests of all parties. These instruments
are not without hazard: it is possible to do much harm to a young scientist,
either by subordinating his need for a lively research experience to the
requirements of a large organization or by exploiting his first enthusiasm
for teaching by assignment exclusively to routine pedagogical tasks. In
a properly designed graduate education, these legitimately remunerated
forms of experience should be designed and administered with a steady eye
for their effect on the graduate student as well as on his pocketbook. This
is an urgent issue in many departments which otherwise have very high
standards.
But once the emphasis is placed squarely on the student's need for the
best possible experience in graduate school, both assisting in the research
of others and sharing in the work of teaching can be intensely valuable
parts of a good education, and in our eagerness to prevent abuse we should
not make rules which cut students off from such opportunities. In particular, fellowship programs should not exclude the student from parttime assignments in research or teaching, and unless the fellowship is so
large as to make any additional stipend unreasonable, there should be no
obstacles to an appropriate payment for such services.
Ideally, perhaps the best way of financing graduate education would
be to take the dollar sign off each of its separate component elements, entwined as they are, and give full support to the student from a general pool
of money, while arranging his work in research, learning, and teaching
so that in part it would meet the needs of others beside himself. As we
work gradually toward such a result we can at least make sure that separate
programs, each good in itself, are administered with full respect for the
general purpose of graduate education.
VII. The Need for Improved Facilities is Urgent
The dramatic expansion of science in this country has outrun our ability
to provide up-to-date space and equipment for either research or teach'This figure is based on recent estimates collected by the Office of Education; the
estimates relate to all fields of learning, and it seems most probable that scientific
education is in general the most expensive kind. Estimates of cost in this field are
very uncertain, but we feel confident that our figure is conservative.


18




ing-still less for the two together. While in the end men are more important than facilities, the immediate bottleneck today, in many fields and
in many universities, is in buildings and equipment. In part this backwardness is the result of a widespread and quite erroneous notion that it is less
fruitful to pay for a building or for its maintenance than for research or
teaching in themselves. Very little good laboratory work can be done
without a roof, and in experimental science the best equipment is usually
the true economy.
These propositions carry a moral for both universities and the government. Neither side should expect to develop first-rate programs without
appropriate space and equipment, and on both sides an increased emphasis
on investment in facilities is desirable. We warmly approve the recent
general endorsement of facilities grants by the executive branch, and we
particularly commend the initiation of programs in this area by the National
Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. While we do
not believe there is any permanent magic in the matter, we see considerable
practical advantage, for the present, in the practice of sharing the costs
of such facilities between the Federal Government and other sources.
Grants contingent upon some degree of "matching" tend to encourage
other sources of support, and to ensure that the receiving institutions have
a serious commitment in the field concerned. The heavy overapplication
for funds available under these programs suggests that, for the present at
least, Federal money will be most productive if it is used in this way. Obviously when the government has a particular interest in a particularly expensive installation of more than local importance, it must expect to meet
all or nearly all the cost of the undertaking. There may also be other
circumstances in which a particularly good opportunity for progress would
be lost if "matching" were insisted on, and we believe that unmatched
grants should be made in such cases.
VIII. New Fields of Research and Education Need Particular Encouragement
As we have already said, the national interest demands particularly rapid
growth of research and training in a number of fields. The identification of
these fields is a job for scientists, universities, and the government, all working together, but since the national interest is involved, particular responsibility for their support rests on the government. In such efforts the
government must at times be willing to concentrate its support in relatively
few places, and universities must avoid a log-rolling insistence on dispersion of efforts in many places at once. Moreover, in its support of these
new subjects the government should place its bets where there is clear evidence that the institution concerned is prepared to establish and encourage
programs of graduate education fully connected with new research.
This is no place for an exhaustive discussion of the particular subjects
that are urgent today. The government has already recognized the existence


19




of special needs in a number of fields; general examples are the sciences
closely related to health and to nuclear physics (including high energy
physics and other subjects only distantly related to military strength).More recently and more specifically there has been a proper special concern for such large fields as materials, meteorology, and oceanography.
These newer interests frequently have the important characteristic that they
are interdisciplinary. Often this overworked word means nothing except
that existing departmental divisions do not recognize a subject which has
itself all the intrinsic qualities of a separate discipline. But there are also
topics which really do require cooperative attack from many branches of
science, and studies of materials, the oceans, and the air have this broader
and truly interdisciplinary character. In such cases both the universities
and the government must be particularly energetic and imaginative in
seeking effective ways of encouraging basic research and graduate education
together, though in a really new field research will necessarily precede any
large-scale teaching program.
The fields we have mentioned are merely illustrative. Well within sight,
but in areas not closely studied by the Federal Government, are opportunities just as striking. Because the government can often be a source of
stimulus to academic institutions wearing the blinders of existing departments and divisions,5 we think that particular attention should be given to
such new topics. Again for illustration only, we suggest that there is great
promise in such an emerging subject as the general study of complex systems
of action, within which such very large questions as the communication
sciences, cognition, and large parts of biology itself might conceivably be
treated as special cases.
IX. Separate Research Installations Should Be Avoided Whenever Possible
The central proposition of this report is that science and the making of
scientists go best together. This means that when it can be managed, basic
research should be done in, or at least in association with, universities. Exceptions to this rule are numerous, of course. Some problems, by their
nature, require attack in ways that are not suited to university life; and
work of the Geological Survey, for example, can hardly be divided among
the universities, yet it requires science of high quality, and basic research is
essential to the whole undertaking; the same thing is true of many other
enterprises of government and industry. Yet we hold to the view that in the
absence of special considerations the university is the best place for basic
research, and we note that the separate installations which do the best work
are, as a rule, those which have a close and effective connection with academic centers; the Geological Survey, in its intimate relation to academic
geology, is an excellent case in point.
When a new field of interest becomes urgent, there is always a temptation
to believe that a new and separate research installation is the easy answer.
In basic research, at least, such a conclusion is usually questionable, and


20




this temptation should be resisted. As a general rule such new undertakings
should be made working parts of universities-or groups of universities, if
the size of the enterprise justifies the additional administrative trouble
involved in such joint ventures.
X. New Research Laboratories for Special Fields Should Be Attached to
Universities Whenever It Is Practicable, and Universities Should Make
Full Educational Use of Such Facilities
Since the beginning of World War II there have developed a number of
major research installations which are supported by Federal money and
operated by universities or groups of universities. At their best these installations have greatly contributed both to research and to education; we
believe that this particular form of partnership between government and
universities deserves encouragement and improvement.
We specifically reject the view that such large operations as those of the
Ames Laboratory of the Iowa State University are inevitably alien to the
university. We believe that great fields of research like nuclear physics
simply must not be cut off from universities just because they now require
very large instruments and correspondingly large staffs of specialists and
technicians. The very difficulities of such large laboratories, in our view,
are an argument for strengthening their connection to the universities.
In the best cases these laboratories have had the following advantages
from their university connection; they have had the active participation of
outstanding university scientists; their own ability to attract first-rate research men has been strengthened by the university's sponsorship; they have
been stimulated to high standards of excellence by the standards of the
university itself. At the same time the university has benefited from opportunities for research and for the advanced training of graduate students,
and its own ability to attract first-rate scientists has been strengthened.
It is true, however, that all such installations have their dangers, and
none of them now is perfect. It is essential that the mission of such laboratories be appropriate for university sponsorship. Development as distinct
from basic research, and the training of technicians as distinct from graduate education, usually belong outside the university framework. Moreover, the large laboratory confronts the university with problems of policy
that are new, and there is a real danger that there will be a destructive
separation between university men and laboratory men. When that
happens the university loses the opportunity for a great enrichment of its
graduate education, and the laboratory loses the stimulus and the support
of the university's scientific staff.
We believe that members of such research installations should be more
fully associated with teaching in the universities than is now usual and conversely we think the installations themselves should always be full of learning students. All concerned should guard against the dangers of bureaucratized "team research," and the installation should be directed with a steady


21




sympathy for new ideas. Government must avoid policies which make
such flexibility difficult, and university faculties must work hard to make
members of the laboratories members of the university community as well.
We have no sympathy with the academic snobbery which occasionally treats
as "outsiders" the members of a large special laboratory. New levels of
connection and understanding are needed if we are not to have two
mutually repellent races of men in our universities-the teaching faculty and
the research staff. It is not enough that a small number of senior professors
should preside over both sides of life; the two can be-and must be-connected in many other ways.
XI. Scientists Outside Universities Can Be Fruitfully Connected to
Graduate Education
In spite of the basic line of argument we have set forth in this report,
American science is and will continue to be much more than the work of
universities and directly affiliated laboratories. Great government-supported or government-operated installations like those at Argonne and
Bethesda are national assets of high scientific importance, and the same is
true of many an industrial laboratory. In some fields of science, leadership
is no longer clearly in the universities, and basic engineering research often
requires kinds of activity that do not fit easily into them. Thus there is a
large and growing sector of American science which is not directly included
in our central analysis, and the question arises whether in this sector there is
anything that can be done to advance the fruitful connection between basic
research and graduate education.
We believe that in this area there are indeed important opportunities
that require exploration and exploitation by industry, by government, and
by universities. Perhaps the simplest notion-and one of the best-is that
it should be possible for research scientists in governmental or industrial
laboratories to contribute to the graduate programs of nearby universities.
This happens now, of course, but it should happen much more often; all
parties should be eager to expand the practice. Government and business
will serve their own interests by facilitating such teaching even to the extent
of helping to pay for it, and universities for their part should be hospitable
to qualified men even though they have chosen to pursue their research
outside the academic fold.
There are many other avenues of fruitful interconnection between universities and government or industrial scientists: graduate students can
learn much from a summer in an industrial laboratory (although such work
should not be part of the degree requirements); academic scientists can and
do serve with distinction as consultants; a year back at the university can
refresh a government scientist; postdoctoral learning can often be done as
well at an outside installation as in the university itself. We believe that the
interpenetration of academic, governmental, and industrial science is only
in its opening stages, and we are sure that those who bravely press the effort


22




to find better connections will be well rewarded. In this effort all concerned
must of course protect their own standards and purposes. The university
cannot become the servant of a particular company or agency. The industrial research laboratory cannot neglect its own mission. Any good thing,
like associating industrial scientists with universities, can be overdone. But
once again the right note, we think, is one of hope, not fear.
XII. Postdoctoral Studies Should Be Encouraged and Their Legitimate
Costs Recognized
One major element in strengthening both graduate education and
basic research can be the postdoctoral fellow, who is ideally equipped to
combine research with learning and both with a share of teaching. We
believe that the nature of modem science makes it necessary that there
should be many more members of this rapidly growing class; both universities and the government should recognize that such postdoctoral work is
as necessary, and at least as expensive, as any other form of advanced training. Postdoctoral fellowships may have particular value in the development of new interdisciplinary fields; regular and rigorous exposure to a
standard doctoral discipline is often an excellent preparation for entry into
subjects which apply the tools of such a discipline to specific problems. The
postdoctoral fellow is free to make this important and difficult transition.
It makes no sense to accept responsibilities for other levels of preparation
and then to ignore this increasingly important higher level of work. Universities, in particular, should seek ways of budgeting for the cost of postdoctoral education just as they do with undergraduate and graduate instruction. Tuition can as reasonably be charged for one as for the other, and
state governments which have accepted the responsibility for meeting the
costs of other kinds of teaching will serve their own interests well by making
explicit provision for this new and growing form of higher education.
XIII. University Faculties Must Be Strengthened
The growth of science depends on good facilities and good studentsbut most of all upon good scientific faculties. The professor is the heart of
the enterprise. Without professors the universities quite simply cease to
exist. They are, indeed, so essential that we often tend to take them for
granted. In recent years, much good work has been done in calling attention to the shockingly low level of faculty salaries, and improvement is
visible. But neither universities nor the Federal Government have yet recognized fully the absolutely focal role of the professor both in research and in
graduate education. Both sides believe they understand the point, but both
continue to tolerate policies that make it difficult for the country to have
the services of an adequate number of adequately supported university
scientists.
The characteristic error of most universities is to pay professors too little
and to load them unwisely with specific teaching assignments. Of course
lack of resources is a main cause of this error, but equally plainly part of


23




the trouble is in a failure to understand the nature and value of a professor.
Universities which pay no more than the market minimum and which make
no adequate provision for research will never move into the front ranks, and
will not deserve to.
And there is more to it than money and time for research. The really
great scientific faculty cannot be the servant of other men-it has to be
secure in its own freedom and responsibility. Too many university administrators suppose that faculties can be bought and managed like baseball
teams. It is not so. Universities need brave trustees and strong administrators, but in the end they are what their faculties make them. That the
United States today has a number of first-rate faculties is our greatest single
scientific asset. To sustain them and to provide the conditions for the
growth of more is the greatest single task of American university administrators.
In placing first and central responsibility upon the universities here, we
do not mean to underestimate the importance of what government does
or does not do-quite the contrary. In our judgment the general pattern
of Federal support for science has so far developed with very little regard
for the problem of building strong faculties, and we think it urgent that
careful thought be given to changes in policy that may help the universities
discharge this great responsibility. The basic difficulty at present is that
most Federal funds are tied to specific research projects in a way which makes
it hard for universities, in making long-term appointments, to rely in any
way on Federal funds. This difficulty is compounded in some agencies by
policies which discourage the use of Federal money to pay the salaries of
senior faculty people. We believe that these practices and policies need
to be revised in the light of the proposition that nothing is more clearly in
the general interest of the Federal Government than a rapid increase in
the quality and quantity of the nation's teaching scientists.
We do not venture to prescribe the ways in which the government and
the universities can best serve their common interest at this sensitive and
highly important point. Experience is a powerful teacher, and so far we
have no knowledge of what can happen when the government and the
university become jointly concerned with strengthening the ranks of senior
scientists in our universities. There are many instruments that can be used
here. At one extreme is the relatively simple practice of paying an appropriate share of the salaries of all faculty members engaged in a federallysupported project; we think that this policy should in general be adopted
as an interim measure, even though it often has the disadvantage of perpetuating the misleading distinction between "teaching" and "research."
At the other extreme is the method, now used in Great Britain, of large
general grants for all purposes to all universities; we doubt if any such pattern could or should be accepted here. In between are such devices as the
training grant, which can often be used for professional salaries, and the
so-called "institutional" grant, in which broadly inclusive support is offered


24




for a relatively large sector-say "biological science"-over a relatively long
period of time. We believe that the government and the universities should
take energetic measures to put into effect programs in this middle ground,
with the specific objective of making Federal money not simply a reinforcement of scientists already holding tenure, but a stimulus and a support in
the appointment of more such men. We repeat that in the general interest
a rapid increase in the number of such permanent professorial scientists is
needed.
We recognize that many university scientists are strongly opposed to
the use of Federal funds for senior faculty salaries. Obviously we do not
share their belief, but we do agree with them on one important point-the
need for avoiding situations in which a professor becomes partly or wholly
responsible for raising his own salary. If a university makes permanent
professorial appointments in reliance upon particular Federal project support, and rejects any residual responsibility for financing the appointment
if Federal funds should fail, a most unsatisfactory sort of "second-class
citizenry" is created, and we are firmly against this sort of thing. A variant
of this same abuse is the practice of permitting extra pay to faculty members
from grants or contracts, during the regular academic year. It seems to us
fundamental to the spirit of a university that a man's salary from the university itself should not be supplemented by extra term-time payments for
work that is properly part of his professorial responsibilities. (Summer compensation for research work is a separate matter, since most academic appointments plainly leave the summer months free for other activities at additional compensation.) just as a professor should not be responsible for
obtaining the funds to pay his regular salary, so also there should be no bonus
payment for "landing a contract."
But in our judgment the possibility of abuse is not a good argument
against action. We are convinced that when a university is firm in accepting institutional responsibility for payment of all senior salaries, and protects its staff from improper pressures or incentives, it can and should seek
Federal support for salaries as for other needed elements in basic research
and graduate education.
XIV. Universities Must Attend to These Matters and Especially to Their
Relations With the Government
The nation's universities urgently need to improve their own ways of
giving attention to the matters described in this report. In general, university administrators need to pay much more attention to the meaning and
requirements of the age of science. In particular both administrators and
faculty members need to improve their methods of dealing with the Federal Government. Many of the limitations and weaknesses we have found
in government programs are the result of failures within the university.
There is an urgent need for stronger and clearer voice of higher education
in Washington, and in particular there is need for more effective represen

25




tation of those who are concerned with excellence in basic research and
graduate education. Either existing agencies of representation should be
greatly strengthened, or new patterns of action should be sought. The
choice of means belongs to the universities themselves, but in any event we
believe that the leading men in our university faculties and administrations
should clearly recognize that a significant investment of their own time and
effort will be continuously needed in this process.
XV. The Government Must Strengthen Its Ability to Make Policy in This
Area
Today when many separate agencies are deeply involved, when large national interests are at stake, and when programs not carefully coordinated
can easily produce waste and even conflict, it is self-evident that the government should have the means for a well-coordinated and powerfullydirected general policy. In our judgment, the final executive authority in
this great field must necessarily lie in the office of the President where
policy can be developed with the aid of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Federal Council for Science and
Technology, and the President's Science Advisory Committee.
A specific issue which requires resolution on a government-wide basis is
that of patent policy regarding inventions that may be of a practical value
and which have been made while working on government financed projects. At present the policies of the different agencies supporting basic research vary greatly and this creates problems both for the government and
the universities.
Under the President's policies, first reliance for designing and operating
effective programs in basic research and graduate education in the sciences
clearly should rest upon the National Science Foundation and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. But there is also a need for
greater uniformity in the general practices of the many government agencies which support research in the nation's universities. The Federal Council for Science and Technology can usefully serve this end.
We do not presume to define the administrative organization that will
best serve to strengthen basic research and graduate education in the
nation. We do believe, however, that the President should establish, in
whatever way he finds most effective, clear general policies to govern the
practices of executive agencies in these areas. Any policy should, of course,
be undertaken with full fiscal responsibility, but just as no university can be
great if its final decisions are made by the business manager, we believe that
in order for the government's programs for the support of science to flourish
they must be determined by longer-range objectives as well as by budgetary
considerations. Moreover, the development of Federal programs to
strengthen two such productive national resources as basic research and graduate education should allow for early and careful discussion with university
leaders as well as for advice from research scientists outside the universities.


26




The basic requirement is a policy of general and growing Federal support
both for basic research and for graduate education. Nothing less will do,
if we mean to keep the position of world leadership in basic science which
we now enjoy.
XVI. Increased Government Activity Is Not a Good Ground for Lessened
Efforts by Others
We have urged in this report that the government should accept growing
responsibility for effective support of graduate education and basic research. Our reasoning is pragmatic, not doctrinaire: government must
do these things because by their size and nature no other agency can. But
there is no reason to suppose that it will be good for the government to act
alone, or for the rest of the forces in our plural society to stand aside. On
the contrary, there is every reason for private and state funds to be sought,
as eagerly and urgently as ever, and the very fact of increasing Federal
support makes such other help an important safeguard against the possibility of undue government influence. In the same way, the government's
own plurality of agencies is valuable, in spite of the occasional confusion
and duplication it can cause. Even in the best of worlds there will be
things which government money cannot or does not do, and private philanthropy will always be greatly needed in the whole field of scientific
research and teaching.


27




PART THREE


RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations grow out of the preceding parts of this
report; they indicate the lines of development which we think urgent in
the immediate future. But for the reader who may turn only to the recommendations, we wish to emphasize that the record of this country in basic
research and graduate education is not one of failure. American science
is second to none in the world, and the Federal Government, on balance,
has played a highly constructive role in supporting it. Most of our specific
recommendations are based on our respect for the best existing practices of
particular agencies of government or particular universities. These recommendations are not intended as criticisms of what has been accomplished,
but as proposals for still greater accomplishment in the future.
General Recommendations:
1) In view of the growing importance of scientific research to national
security and welfare, all parts of the national community should assume
a greater responsibility for supporting, strengthening, and expanding basic
research and graduate education.
2) 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.
3) It is of equal importance to increase support for rising centers of
science. Over the next fifteen years the United States should seek to double
the number of universities doing generally excellent work in basic research
and graduate education.
4) It should be a general basis of policy and action that basic research
and the education of scientists go best together; that they are inseparable
functions of universities; that in graduate education the training of scientists involves research; and that the strength of scientific research grows
out of research training in institutions of higher education.
5) To attract more talented young people to science as a career, both
undergraduate colleges and the Federal Government should give urgent
attention to the quality of collegiate instruction in the sciences. Here again
research and teaching need to be connected wherever possible, so that both
teachers and students may have the opportunity for learning by scientific
inquiry. Better salaries, increased time for research, rising support for


28




facilities and equipment, and modernization of curriculum-all are needed
in undergraduate colleges.
6) Both the universities and the Federal Government should be energetic
and imaginative in seeking effective ways of identifying and supporting new
fields of basic research and in supporting the training of scientists in such
fields. Many research opportunities are emerging in new fields that are
essentially interdisciplinary; these require special efforts by universities to
encourage new programs. The Federal Government should stimulate and
support such programs where there is clear evidence that the institutions
are prepared to establish programs of graduate education fully connected
with the new research.
7) State, local and private resources are needed on a large and growing
scale to meet the needs and opportunities in basic research and graduate
education. While this report emphasizes the responsibilities of universities
and the Federal Government, the very fact of growing Federal activity
makes it urgent that state, local and private efforts also be increased, for,
especially as concerns private efforts, there will always be much that the
government either does not or cannot do.
Recommendations for Universities:
1) Universities must continue and expand their efforts to pay proper
salaries, provide adequate time and opportunity for research, and maintain
an atmosphere of free learning and investigation.
2) Universities should recognize that graduate education in the sciences
needs constant modernization.
3) University programs in graduate education should ordinarily include
experience in both research and teaching, whether the student is headed
for academic work or for industrial or governmental research. Such experience should be of a sort which advances the scientific effectiveness of the
graduate student; it should not be limited to drudgery in support of the
research or teaching of senior faculty.
4) Universities should give increased recognition to postdoctoral opportunities for promising students. Appropriate budgetary arrangements
should be made for this form of education.
5) Universities should make full educational use of affiliated research
installations. These installations should always be available to learning
students, and members of research staffs should, wherever possible, be associated in the teaching processes of the university itself.
6) Universities should strengthen their faculties for both research and
graduate teaching by accepting and using Federal as well as non-Federal
support for faculty salaries.
7) The university community as a whole has a duty to inform the government clearly and in detail of the nature and needs of basic research and
graduate education. There is urgent need for strengthening the quantity


29




and quality of representation of universities before both the Congress and
the Executive Branch.
8) Universities should accept primary responsibility for ensuring that
their growing partnership with the government reinforces their freedom
and excellence.
Recommendations for the Federal Government:
1) Federal support for basic research and graduate education in the
sciences should be continued and flexibly increased so as to support excellence where it already exists and to encourage new centers of outstanding
work.
2) The Federal Government should continue and enlarge the practice,
now followed with great success in a few agencies, of providing research
support over long terms and for broad objectives.
3) Once support is granted, the Federal Government should not seek
to supervise technical operations directly. Complete scientific responsibility
for all phases of a research operation should remain with the universities.
Here again the best practice of the most effective agencies is a good model
for the government as a whole.
4) We repeat the recommendation of an earlier report that "Government departments and agencies concerned should uniformly modify the
grant and contract provisions to permit universities and non-profit research institutions to charge full cost of research performed for the government-including overhead-and to amortize capital expenditures as an
allowable cost." 6
This recommendation has been implemented to some extent, but still
requires further attention if we are not to undermine the strength of the
institutions which perform the needed research. Unless research is to be
cut back, the recommendation does imply increased expense; as funds
increase, the further implementation of this recommendation should have
very high priority.
5) Since the Federal Government has a deep interest in a rapid increase
in the quality and quantity of the nation's teaching scientists, its agencies
should in general seek forms of support for basic research and graduate
education which will permit universities to enlarge their permanent faculties. In particular, the government should allow charges against all Federal grants and contracts for time spent by faculty members on work so supported. (However, no such charges against grants and contracts should be
permitted for extra compensation to individual faculty members during the
regular academic year.)
6) Federally supported fellowship programs should be expanded when
truly promising candidates can be found. Fellowships should be provided
both directly to talented graduate and postdoctoral students, and also to
selected universities for allocation to promising applicants. They should
6 Strengthening American Science, p. 34.


30




"q


include a supplementary grant based on the full cost of such education.
Such programs should not exclude the student from part-time assignments
in research or teaching or from payment for such services when it is
appropriate.
7) Federal support of facilities and equipment should be provided for both
basic research and graduate education so as to increase the quality and quantity of research results and the number of trained scientists. Since the
need for buildings and equipment is urgent, these should have high priority
for the present. When the Federal Government has a particular interest
in an installation of more than local importance, it should expect to meet
all or nearly all the cost of the undertaking. In other cases, the practice of
sharing the costs of facilities and equipment between the Federal Government and other sources should be encouraged, for the present at least, since
it stimulates other sources of support and ensures that the receiving institutions have a serious commitment in the field concerned.
8) In the assignment of funds for basic research, the government should
seek to promote the essential connection between the conduct of research
and the training of scientists. Where it is feasible, new undertakings should
be established in, or in close association with universities, and the great influence and effectiveness of basic research in existing government installations should be increased where possible by improving its connection to
graduate education and to university scientists.
9) The government should strengthen its ability to establish general policies governing its support of basic research and graduate education at universities. These policies should be formulated under the leadership of the
office of the President utilizing appropriate advisory machinery. The planning of Federal programs in these areas should allow for early and careful
discussion with university leaders.


31




MEMBERSHIP OF THE PANEL ON BASIC RESEARCH AND
GRADUATE EDUCATION OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
William O. Baker, Vice President (Research) Bell Telephone Laboratories
George W. Beadle, Chairman, Division of Biology, California Institute of
Technology
Henry E. Bent, Dean, Graduate School, University of Missouri
McGeorge Bundy, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard
University
William B. Fretter, Professor of Physics, University of California
Caryl P. Haskins, President, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Emanuel R. Piore, Vice President for Research and Engineering, International Business Machines Corporation
Roger Revelle, Director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University
of California
Frederick E. Terman, Vice President and Provost, Stanford University
Alan T. Waterman, Director, National Science Foundation
Alvin M. Weinberg, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
John E. Willard, Dean, Graduate School, University of Wisconsin
O. Meredith Wilson, President, University of Minnesota
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley (Chairman)
Consultants to the Panel
Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., Assistant Commissioner and Director of the Division of Higher Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Herbert S. Conrad, Coordinator of Research, Division of Higher Education,
U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Howard F. Foncannon, Special Assistant to the Associate Director for
Educational and International Activities, National Science Foundation
Roy M. Hall, Assistant Commissioner for Research, Office of Education,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Technical Assistant to the Panel
Robert N. Kreidler, Office of the Special Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, The White House


32




MEMBERSHIP OF THE PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
John Bardeen, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics, University
of Illinois
George W. Beadle, Chairman, Division of Biology, California Institute of
Technology
Detlev W. Bronk, President, The Rockefeller Institute
Harvey Brooks, Dean, Division of Engineering and Applied Physics, Harvard
University
James B. Fisk, President, The Bell Telephone Laboratories
Donald F. Hornig, Professor of Chemistry, Princeton University
James R. Killian, Jr., Chairman of the Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Robert F. Loeb, Bard Professor of Medicine, Columbia University
Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Director, High Energy Physics Laboratory, Stanford University
Emanuel R. Piore, Vice President for Research and Engineering, International Business Machines Corporation
Edward M. Purcell, Professor of Physics, Harvard University
Isidor I. Rabi, Professor of Physics, Columbia University
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley
'n W. Tukey, Professor of Mathematics, Princeton University
*n M. Weinberg, Director, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,me B. Wiesner, Director, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massawlnusetts Institute of Technology
Walter H. Zinn, Vice President, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
George B. Kistiakowsky, Special Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, The White House (Chairman)


r -     'NMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1960