Table E— Possible Causes for Relatively Reduced 



Support of High Risk-High Payoff 



Research 



Percent of 

 Suggesied causes' panelisls in 



agreement 



Economic recession forced emphasis 



on short-term economic payoff, and 



concomitant retreat of scientists 



to safe areas of research 90 



Public and political disaffection 



with perceived societal effects 



of technology 89 



Lack of understanding of process of 



discovery 80 



Disappointment with payoff from 



research investments (i e , space, 



high energy physics, etc.) 70 



Association of R&D with the Defense 



Department, and transfer of 



negative feelings about military 



expenditures 63 



Increasingly high cost of basic 



research ventures 60 



Failure to handle accelerating pace 



of knowledge acquisition 43 



Investment in mission-oriented space 



research 29 



I hems were suggested by panelists in the first round, and presented 

 in second 



the belief that association with the Department 

 of Defense results in the transfer of. negative 

 feelings regarding military expenditures to all 

 R&D activities. Compensating policies included 

 educating the public about the positive role of 

 science and technology in the solution of socie- 

 tal problems (60 percent); direct funding of pay- 

 off areas (i.e., ecology, nuclear fusion, ocean- 

 ography) (56 percent); administration of all 

 Federal contracts through civilian agencies (50 

 percent); promoting public awareness of dif- 

 ferences between science and technology (44 

 percent); and operationalizing and publicizing 

 systems of technology assessment (38 percent). 

 Seventy-one percent of the panelists disagreed 

 that investment in mission-oriented space re- 

 search caused a decline in "high risk-high pay- 

 off" basic research. 



Impeiitments to Baiic Research 



Finally, panelists evaluated factors which may 

 be impeding the effectiveness of basic research 



(table F). These factors can be grouped approxi- 

 mately as: (a) external factori relating chiefly to 

 funding, including the level of funding, the 

 source and criteria for funding, and knowledge 

 and attitude of the public; and (b) internal factors 

 including inadequate long-range planning, 

 "fashions" in research, inadequately trained re- 

 searchers, lack of equipment, and inadequate 

 industrial participation. 



Several panelists thought some of the factors 

 were not impediments. Fifty-six percent of the 

 group judged the current number of re- 

 searchers to be adequate; 63 percent believed 

 that emphasis on applied research had essen- 

 tially no effect or actually helped; 50 percent 

 thought the composition of science advisory 

 groups was not an impediment; and 27 percent 

 viewed funding through national defense 

 agencies as beneficial. 



Panel 5 — 33 Panelists 



Distribution of Basic Research 

 Funds Among Fields of Science 



Under this topic opinions were sought about 

 criteria which might be useful in deciding on 

 relative levels of support for basic research in 

 various scientific fields— life, physical, engi- 

 neering, mathematical, and social. The several 

 criteria suggested by the panelists (table G) can 

 be separated into four clusters, each reflecting a 

 dominant concern: (a) advancement of knowl- 

 edge (Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11); (b) effective use of 

 scientific capabilities and resources (Nos. 10, 14, 

 15, 16, 18); (c) potential application and use of re- 

 sults (Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9); and (d) public under- 

 standing and support of research (Nos. 12 and 

 17). In terms of the importance ratings assigned 

 by the panelists to the criteria in each cluster, 

 allocation of funds among fields should depend 

 primarily upon opportunities for advancement 

 of knowledge and the potential application of 

 this knowledge to practical ends. Of much less 

 importance— but still to be considered— are cri- 

 teria concerned with effective use of scientific 

 capabilities and resources, and public under- 

 standing and support of basic research. 



Using these criteria, the panelists evaluated 

 the appropriateness of the present distribution 

 of research funds among fields, with the results 

 shown in the figure entitled "Federal Obliga- 

 tions for Basic Research by Field of Science." 



90 



