Panel 2 — 16 Panelists 



Impacts of R&D Funding Changes 



Delphi panelists identified and assessed 

 certain R&D funding changes which had 

 occurred since l^oS in terms of their beneficial 

 or detrimental impacts, and identified some of 

 the major consequences — both positive and 

 negative — of these changes. Funding changes, 

 which a majority of panelists believed to be 

 either beneficial or detrimental, are presented in 

 table B. 



Table B — Funding Changes Assessed as 

 Beneficial or Detrimental to R&D 



Bt'iiffiiinl changes' 



Incrca^ai sj'fiuiing (or health rclateil 



R&D 



Increast'ti sufpfort for social sciences 



Increasing percentage of lolal R6D funded 

 bif mditstn/ rather than Government . . . 



Percent of 



panelists 



assessing change 



as beneficial 



69 

 67 



65 



Percent of 

 panelists 

 Delriinentnl changes' assessing change 



as detrimental 



Three changes in R&D funding were viewed 

 as beneficial. Increased spending for health- 

 related research and development was regarded 

 as having been a positive trend because of the 

 likelihood of improved health services for the 

 general community, rather than for basic science 



advances in the life sciences per se. Similarly, in- 

 creased support for the social sciences were 

 deemed beneficial largely because of the 

 possibilities for developing a more scientific ap- 

 proach to social problems; increased R&D fund- 

 ing by the private sector was seen as probably re- 

 sulting in greater emphasis on efforts which 

 contribute to the economy in significant and 

 immediate ways. Some panelists, however, 

 warned that the latterchange produced a shift in 

 R&D toward short-term and low-risk efforts 

 aimed at insignificant technological advances. 



Most of the changes regarded as detrimental 

 relate to decreases in R&D funding. In respect to 

 reduced R&D and basic research funding (in con- 

 stant dollars), the many consequences sug- 

 gested by individual panelists included: a de- 

 crease or delay in developing new knowledge; 

 the loss of scientific manpower and the reduc- 

 tion of the number of future scientists and engi- 

 neers; increased reliance on Federal administra- 

 tors for program selection; the demise of signifi- 

 cant basic research programs formerly 

 supported by the Department of Defense; and in 

 the long run, a loss of the U.S. leadership posi- 

 tion in basic sciences. 



As in the case of funding decreases, all 

 panelists judged frequent, rapid changes of pro- 

 grams and directions of funding to be detri- 

 mental because of the discontinuities intro- 

 duced into research programs and the conse- 

 quent waste of financial and human resources. 



The panelists also registered concern about 

 criteria employed in allocating support for re- 

 search. The group thought that allocation on the 

 basis of "student count" (a funding change 

 identified by the panelists) was detrimental to 

 the scientific and technical enterprise since it 

 results in an ever greater concentration of re- 

 search in larger institutions. A small majority (52 

 percent) of the panelists believed that increased 

 allocation to R&D areas with short-term applica- 

 tion was harmful because of the resulting re- 

 duced support and training in the basic sciences; 

 a slower rate of development of new knowl- 

 edge; the sacrifice of long-term needs; and in- 

 creased support of second-rate projects masked 

 as topical and relevant research. In contrast, 25 

 percent of the respondents thought that in- 

 creased allocation to areas with short-term 

 application was beneficial because of possibly 

 earlier benefits to society in important need 

 areas. 



The R&D efforts of industry were also a prime 

 concern of the panelists, who thought that de- 



86 



