It is important to note that the term "research-intensive" is understood to relate to any college or university 

 which performs a significant amount of research as well as education. The perspectives in this paper do not neces- 

 sarily apply to university-administered R&D laboratories. DoD considers these laboratories to be fundamentally dif- 

 ferent entities, since their primary mission is R&D rather than education, and the overwhelming percentage of their 

 work is development and engineering, not basic research. 



The Current Relationship. The DoD relationship to research-intensive universities is broad and diverse. It 

 covers the fiill spectrum of goals to include research, education and training. The primary role of university research 

 for defense is in what DoD defines as basic research; its piuposes being to create knowledge and educate. Although 

 the primary support mechanism is the grant, both contracts and cooperative agreements may be involved. Unless 

 otherwise required by statute, almost all of these arrangements are achieved through competitive processes such as 

 the Broad Agency Announcement, in which the goals and criteria for success are published prior to selection. Merit 

 review is an integral part of the evaluation process. The main criteria are: 1. technical excellence, and 2. potential 

 long-term mihtary relevance. 



The University Research Initiative (URI) is an example of the competitive, merit review process in action. The 

 major facet of URI encourages multidisciplinary teams to accelerate research progress in areas suited to team effort. 



Public Benefits from Research-Intensive Universities/Federal Government Relationship: 



It is clear that the public benefits materially from defense research and the subsequent developments that result 

 in fielded military equipment. In addition, defense-trained scientists and engineers conUibute to the critical pool of 

 skilled technologists and teaching cadre of the country. 



Special defense research facilities also provide benefit, not just to the public in general, but to researchers in 

 nondefense programs. For example, the defense-created MOS Implementation System (MOSIS) integrated circuit 

 design and fabrication capability is available to circuit designers across the nation. Similariy, the ARPANET, the first 

 electronic mail system in the country, revolutionized communications within the academic community. Innovative 

 defense research and development has also contributed significantly to the highly profitable aerospace, electronics, 

 and computer industries. 



DoD Expectations/Requirements for Relationships with Universities: 



DOD expectations are as diverse as the interactions it has with the academic community. For example, the URI 

 fosters both multidisciplinary research and "people programs" that include graduate fellowships, research 

 traineeships, and other opportunities that build infrastructure for future defense research. 



Issues with Current Relationships/Barriers to an Effective Relationship: 



The most serious issue is that of Congressional earmarks. The Department of Defense has long opposed ear- 

 marks because they present DoD with conflicting statutory directions. Some earmarks have required funding of 

 projects that relate neither to current nor likely future defense needs. They are also in conflict with statutory 

 provisions specifying merit competition. In addition, both noncompetitive earmarks and earmarks with restricted 

 competitive fields tend to lower the standards of merit, and create segments of the university community that are de- 

 pendent on federal funds, without improving their competitive stance. This potentially perpetuates dependence on 

 earmarks. In FY92 earmarks rose to almost one fourth of the entire DoD research program. 



Finally, the use of earmarks sends a signal to all researchers that it may be easier or more profitable to seek 

 awards through influence rather than through work on proposals that other scientists agree have first rate merit. This 

 attitude tends to sacrifice the viability of the long-term national technology base for local short-term gains. 



Elements/Characteristics of a Productive Future Relationship: 



Important factors that should improve our future research capability include: 



35 



