CHAPTER 1 



BASIC RESEARCH IN AGENCY LABORATORIES AND FEDERALLY 

 FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS 



This chapter focuses on intramural basic re- 

 search as reported by each agency. It should be 

 emphasized that there is some lack of consistency 

 in the figures for basic research funding. This is 

 illustrated by the difference between the Energy 

 Research and Development Administration 

 (ERDA). which does not include any departmen- 

 tal overhead in the figures it reports, and the Na- 

 tional Science Foundation (NSF), for which the 

 reported intramural figure is 100 percent over- 

 head. In general, 10 to 12 percent of the total ba- 

 sic research obligations, representing the adminis- 

 trative costs of running the program, is added to 

 the obligations for basic research actually per- 

 formed in-house to arrive at the intramural figure; 

 in some cases the administrative costs are consi- 

 derably higher. 



Federal laboratories and the agencies themselves 

 accounted for $791 million (current dollars) of Fed- 

 eral basic research obligations in FY 1977 (see Table 

 ?> and Figure 4 in Introduction). This is the second 

 largest performing sector next to universities and 

 colleges and their share of the total Federal basic 

 research effort has increased from 24 percent in 1968 

 to 29 percent in 1977. As measured in constant ( 1972) 

 dollars, total in-house basic research obligations 

 have grown in the 1968-77 decade from $499 million 

 to $564 million, or 13 percent. Over the 1968-1976 

 period. Federal intramural obligations (in current 

 dollars) rose an average of 7.3 percent annually, reg- 

 istered a 10 percent gain in 1977, and are projected to 

 rise another 7.6 percent in the 1978 budget. 



Inasmuch as the scope of this report did not in- 

 clude any assessment of the quality of such research 

 and as there was little opportunity to communicate 

 directly with the laboratories, attention has been 

 focused on ( I ) the degree of centralized versus dele- 

 gated program decision making and (2) other interac- 

 tions between headquarters and the laboratories, 

 including the manner of selecting the laboratory 

 directors. Grade levels of directors and other senior 

 scientists can be important in that they affect the 

 quality of the individuals who can be recruited; such 

 levels vary considerably from agency to agency, but 

 an analysis of this without examining grade struc- 

 tures throughout the agency could give a distorted 

 picture, and thus was not attempted. 



There is wide variation in agency use and oper- 

 ation of laboratories. They may be manned by 

 Government employees, contractor employees, 

 employees of a collaboratng organization, or some 



combination of these. They may have essentially 

 complete autonomy, almost none, or some de- 

 gree between these extremes. In NSF publica- 

 tions, contractor-operated facilities are catego- 

 rized as Federally Funded Research and Develop- 

 ment Centers (FFRDC's) if: 



(1) The primary activity is research and/or de- 

 velopment, or the management of R&D; 



(2) The work is performed at the request of or 

 under a broad charter from the Federal 

 Government, which also monitors the work; 



(3) The facility is a separate operational unit or 

 corporation; 



(4) At least 70 percent of the operation is feder- 

 ally funded; 



(5) The facility has at least 5 years expected 

 lifetime under contract; 



(6) Most or all of the facility is paid for by the 

 Federal Government; and 



(7) The facility has an average annual budget of 

 at least $500,000.1 



It has been the practice for statistical purposes 

 to treat the FFRDC's more or less as though they 

 were part of the contractor's operation, and in a 

 few cases this may be appropriate. In general, 

 however, an FFRDC is much more like an in- 

 house activity of the sponsoring agency, simply 

 being operated for it by the contractor — except 

 that some FFRDC's provide greater flexibility for 

 the use of Government facilities by outsiders. 



Department of Agriculture 



The Department of Agriculture collaborates 

 extensively with State and local governments and 

 with colleges and universities, especially the land- 

 grant institutions of 1862 and 1890, Tuskegee In- 

 stitute, and institutions with schools of forestry. 

 These collaborations can result in Government 

 and university scientists working together in facil- 

 ities that may be owned by the Federal Govern- 

 ment or by a university. The university scientists 

 may be supported by Agriculture, but, if so, it is 

 probably with Hatch Act funds at a State Agricul- 



' Federal Funds for Refie:irch. Development, and Other Sci- 

 entific Activities. Vol. XXV (N,SF 76-3 l.'i), p. 55. Hereinafter re- 

 ferred to as Federal Funds with appropriate N.SF piitilication 

 numbers. 



BASIC RESEARCH IN AGENCY LABORATORIES AND FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS 241 



