agencies responsible for these installations.'' A 

 total of 17 departments, independent agencies, 

 and commissions reported nearly 700 installa- 

 tions, over 85 percent of which are within the 

 Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, 

 and Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and 

 in the National Aeronautics and Space 

 Administration (NASA). 



Another feature of the Federal in-house R&D 

 installations is the large number of small units; 

 approximately one-half of all the installations 

 have nine or fewer professional staff members. 

 The majority of these installations are under the 

 jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture's 

 Agricultural Research Service and Forest Serv- 

 ice. Many of these small laboratories are actually 

 in close juxtaposition to larger installations or 

 are located on the campuses of land-grant 

 institutions. At the other end of the size spec- 

 trum, the largest installations belong to NASA, 

 and are staffed by almost 5,000 professionals. 



in current dollars, although between l^oo and 

 I'^o'' the rise was very moderate and, in real 

 terms, actually showed a slight decline (figure 



fo2). 



The rate of growth of Federal intramural R&D 

 funding over the 10oO-72 period exceeded that 

 of the national R&D effctrt. During ]OoO, the 

 Federal Government obligated $1.7 billion for 

 intramural R&D which represented 23 percent 

 of total Federal R&D obligations and 13 percent 

 of total national R&D expenditures (figure 62). 

 Estimates for 1''72 indicate that Federal intra- 

 mural R&D accounted for 27 percent of the 

 Federal R&D budget and 16 percent of national 

 R&D expenditures. Increases in the Federal 

 intramural shares of R&D totals have resulted 

 not only from higher intramural funding, but 

 also from the fact that Federal funds for R&D in 

 industry dropped in recent years, as the result of 

 reductions in development programs of NASA 

 and the Atcimic Energy Commission. 



Federal Funding of Intramural R&D 



Cost data on Federal laboratories can be 

 approximated from funding data on Federal 

 intramural R&D. Such data have been collected 

 since 1^55, and include overall costs of Federal 

 R&D performance as well as costs of administer- 

 ing R&D grants and contracts. In some agencies, 

 such as the National Science Foundation which 

 maintains no Federal laboratories, and the 

 Atomic Energy Commission, which has only 

 three relatively small laboratories, the costs of 

 grant and contract administration represent the 

 great bulk of the intramural effort. In others, 

 such as the Department of Defense, the costs of 

 administering grants and contracts are a minor 

 portion of total intramural costs. This situation 

 would also hold for NASA, and the Depart- 

 ments of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

 Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. Thus, 

 funding data in this sector must be interpreted 

 with considerable caution. 



Between 1^61 and 1972 Federal R&D obliga- 

 tions for intramural performance rose by a 

 factor of two and one-third — from $1.9 billion to 

 $4.5 billion — as Federal agency programs grew. 

 In constant (1958) dollars the rise was not as 

 steep— from $1.8 billion to $3.1 billion in 1^72. 

 Each year in the entire period marked a new high 



■'' National Science Foundation, D:reiiory of Federnl R&D 

 bislalhUiimi.. NSF 70-23. 



Funding by Agencies 



During this time, the Department of Defense 

 (DOD) intramural R&D obligations were the 

 largest of all agencies, although its share of the 

 total of such Federal obligations decreased from 

 71 percent in I'^ol to 54 percent in 1072 (figure 

 o3). While the absolute level of DOD's intra- 

 mural funding showed an almost continuous in- 

 crease, the expansion of intramural work on the 

 part of other agencies — notably NASA and 

 HEW — was responsible for the decline in the 

 DOD share. 



NASA made up 10 percent of the Federal total 

 in lOol and rose to a high of 28 percent in 1965, 

 reflecting the buildup of the Apollo program. 

 Thereafter its share declined in most years, 

 falling to 20 percent in 1'372. 



The Departments of Health, Education, and 

 Welfare (especially the National Institutes of 

 Health), Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce 

 experienced little change over the 1061-73 

 period in their respective shares of Federal intra- 

 mural R&D funding. Two of these agencies. 

 Agriculture and Commerce, rely on intramural 

 resources more fully than extramural per- 

 formers, while the Interior Department does 

 approximately one-half of its R&D intra- 

 murally. 



The Department of Transportation did not 

 come into existence until 1966, but its attention 

 to problems of ground and air transportation 



75 



