Table G — Criteria for Allocating Basic Research Funds Among Scientific Fields 



Importance 



Cnterit 



Very 

 impor- 

 tant 



141 



Percent 



Potential for major extension of 



scientific knowledge 



Ba^ic knowledge to he givneii in the fiehi 



promises to provide new liirections 



for science 



Likely payoff for national objectives, such as 



health, defense, environmental controls . . 

 Extent to which field is ripe for growth .... 

 field stimulates new technological 



advances 



Field contributes to progress in other fields . 

 Fields that create new disciplines . . . 

 Market mechanism indicates more 



research is necessary 



Field contributes to national educational 



objectives 



Field attracts the most able 



researchers 



Maintaining balance of research 



competence across fields 



Fosters public understanding of 



basic research 



Superiority of internal (Nos. 1, 2, 4) 



over external (Nos. 3, 5, 8) 



criteria 



Extent of effective use of resources in field . . 

 Balance between current and anticipated 



demands for persons trained in field .... 

 Number of researchers working in 



field without adequate support . . . 

 Packaging of basic research programs so 



as to enhance political support .... 



Unit cost of doing research 



Need to match facilities being constructed 



or in use in other countries 



83 



25 



27 

 8 

 



10 

 



17 

 



18 



67 







42 



36 



75 

 50 



40 



42 



42 



20 



9 



30 

 25 



27 



18 



9 

 8 



17 



111 IZI 



Percent Percent Percent Percent 



17 



25 



24 

 33 



27 



8 



25 



40 



17 



8 



30 



54 



10 

 33 



36 

 18 



27 

 42 



8 







16 

 



9 

 8 

 



10 



42 



17 



40 



9 



50 

 25 



27 

 45 



54 

 25 



75 



1.00 



.97 



.35 



' Items in italics were suggested to panelists as examples, others were added by panelists and presented in setond round 

 - Sum of importance ratmgs for each criteria (proportion of panelists selecting each importance category times the 

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



Comments by panelists, however, suggest 

 certain ambiguities in the phrasing of instruc- 

 tions and questions which allow several possible 

 interpretations concerning the total basic re- 

 search level and time frame referred to by the 

 questions. These ambiguities, however, do not 

 invalidate the panelists' general suggestion for 

 increasing the proportionate level of funding for 

 the social sciences as well as for engineering, 

 mathematics, and psychology. 



Panel 6—10 Panelists 



Changes in Graduate 

 Training of Scientists and Engineers 



This Delphi study sought to identify and eval- 

 uate changes in graduate science and engi- 

 neering education aimed at increasing the 

 employability of scientists and engineers. The 



92 



