Table D— Criteria for Use in Determining Total Funding Levels for Basic Research 



Imporltiiiie 



Vcru L/n- Rf/n- 



niipoi- jitif'or- Hve 



Criteria' tani tanl impor- 



(41 (.!) Ill 111 lOl latice- 



ffrct'iit fh'rct'iit pt-rit'nt ffrit'tit fh'ici-nt 



Potential for fundamental new 



insights 58 33 8 1.00 



Science needed to generate technolog- 

 ical solutions to major societal 



needs 45 36 17 ."5 



Contributes to maintenance of ade- 

 quate spectrum of basic research 



skills as a resource for the future . 33 42 25 .91 



Availability of resources in society: 



ratio of total basic research/GNP . 33 50 8 8 .87 



Ntimher of qualified researchers 25 33 33 8 .83 



Proposal pressures: quantity of meritorious 



proposals irt particular areas of basic 



research 33 17 42 8 .82 



Pretietennincii ratio of basic research to 



total R&D expenditures 33 17 25 25 .80 



NeviJ application of known laws to 



broader range of problems and 



initiatives 25 17 25 33 .76 



Research contributes to education 



and training of new researchers . . 50 25 25 .73 



Competitive pressure: activity of greater 



emphasis existing in other nations 17 17 17 33 17 .64 



' hems in italics were sugggested to panelists as examples; others were added by panelists and presented in second round 

 - Sum of importance ratings for each criterion (proportion of panelists selecting each importance category times the 

 numerical value of the category), divided by the largest sum. 



of such work might be the current search for 

 gravitational waves. 



The panelists judged the level of "high risk- 

 high payoff" basic research to be increasingly 

 inadequate over the 1968-72 period. This de- 

 cline was attributed to overall economic factors, 

 lack of understanding of the process of 

 discovery, and general disaffection with tech- 

 nology, as shown in table E. 



Ninety percent of the panelists agreed that the 

 economic recession forced an emphasis on short- 

 term payoffs to the detriment of "high risk-high 

 payoff" research. Sixty percent believed the 

 increasing high cost of basic research ventures 

 heightened these effects. To reverse the trend 

 toward less "high risk-high payoff" research, 

 panelists (64 percent) suggested establishing 

 long-range research objectives, providing incen- 

 tive risk-support funding (44 percent), and 



increasing Federal funding to basic research in 

 universities (38 percent). 



Eighty percent of the panelists thought that 

 lack of understanding of the process of discovery 

 caused a change in the ratio of funding for "high 

 risk-high payoff" basic research. They called for 

 making the "hard and unpopular" decision to re- 

 tain a fraction of resources for high-risk re- 

 search (67 percent) and for recognizing the role 

 of the scientist — as distinct from the engi- 

 neer — in industrial research (40 percent). 



Relatedly, 89 percent of the respondents be- 

 lieved that public and, therefore, political dis- 

 affection with perceived societal effects of tech- 

 nology contributed to the decline in high-risk 

 funding. Similarly, 70 percent thought 

 disappointment with payoffs from previous re- 

 search investment was partially responsible for 

 the decline. Sixty-three percent also expressed 



89 



507-194 O - 73 ■ 



