posals being received; (4) the urgency of the re- 

 sults; (5) the relation of the research to the overall 

 agency mission; and (6) the availability of quali- 

 fied manpower. The availability of funds is the 

 most important of the six criteria. 



Choices are made first among the program 

 areas. These are generally proposed during the 

 overall planning process by program staff as the 

 budget plan is formulated, then adjudicated by 

 senior administrators, and finally adjusted and al- 

 located according to the availability of funds. 

 Once the decision on program areas has been 

 made, the selection of individual projects is 

 handled by program managers based on agency poli- 

 cies and regulations established according to the 

 above six criteria. 



To insure that basic research is not overlooked 

 in their programs, several agencies allocate a per- 

 centage of available funds for the support of basic 

 research. NIE, for example, allocates about 20 

 percent of its funds for basic research; ERDA has 

 set its goal at 6 percent. Agriculture states its goal 

 in other terms, allocating 5 percent of its research 

 funds for the support of new ideas. (See Part I, 

 Agriculture, for more detail.) Other agencies 

 clearly use some form of strategy to support basic 

 research but do not indicate precise numbers in 

 advance of their project decisions. 



The criteria applied and procedures followed in 

 determining levels of funding for programs and 

 individual projects in in-house laboratories are 

 essentially the same as those applied to work 

 under grant or contract. Most agencies approve 

 projects or obligate funds only for the first phase 

 of a research effort, intending to continue sup- 

 port, often at an increasing level, as long as the 

 project shows progress. Such a procedure re- 

 quires careful review and evaluation of the work 

 in progress to insure that continued support is jus- 

 tified. Furthermore, this procedure permits pro- 

 gram managers to support initiation of higher risk 

 work, because they are assured scheduled oppor- 

 tunities to discontinue support. 



There are numerous agencies — such as the Vet- 

 erans Administration (VA), the Bureau of Mines, 

 the U.S. Geological Survey, NBS, Smithsonian, 

 and the Fish and Wildlife Service — whose re- 

 search, except on rare occasions, is carried out 

 solely by in-house laboratories. The VA supports 

 no outside research. The work of agencies such as 

 NBS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. 

 Geological Survey, except for a few specialized 

 programs, is done in their own laboratories. These 

 agencies are not faced with a choice of location 

 except in rare instances when the work is urgent 

 and no in-house capability exists. Outside per- 

 formers are then sought through a call for propos- 

 als. 



Other agencies have no in-house laboratories 

 and contract or grant funds for the designated re- 

 search to a university or some research group or 

 laboratory, an industrial performer, or, on occa- 

 sion, to another agency laboratory. Such agencies 

 include OWRT, the Department of Labor, the 

 Agency for International Development (AID), 

 NSF, the Advanced Research Projects Agency 

 (ARPA, now DARPA), and the Department of 

 Justice. In all these cases, the agencies seek to 

 select the most capable performers through a re- 

 view process. 



Still other agencies have major in-house labora- 

 tories and contract laboratories that carry out a 

 large portion of their research activities, but also 

 support considerable extramural research in uni- 

 versities, research laboratories, and industry. 

 These agencies include the Air Force, the Army, 

 the Navy, ERDA. NIH, NASA, the Alcohol. 

 Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration 

 (ADAMHA), the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

 NOAA. Research management personnel decide 

 during the various stages in the planning process 

 where the research will be carried out. Because 

 most planning procedures include input from 

 working scientists, especially those in the agen- 

 cy's own laboratories, the site chosen is often the 

 place where the scientist is already working, be it 

 an in-house laboratory or one outside the agency. 



Most of the agencies that have a choice of us- 

 ing in-house laboratories or contracting out first 

 examine their own research capabilities before 

 exploring those outside. The policy of some agen- 

 cies, however, is to maintain both internal and 

 external sources of research strength. The Air 

 Force maintains a strong industrial capability that 

 is considered to be on readiness alert in times of 

 crisis. Although ERDA and NASA depend heavi- 

 ly on their contract laboratories (to which they 

 give most of their support), both agencies main- 

 tain major programs in universities and industry, 

 avoiding (as much as possible) any competition 

 between their own laboratories and the universi- 

 ties. 



Certain research requires the availability of 

 specialized, costly facilities. Many of these are 

 installed in Government or contract laboratories 

 (e.g.. Navy, Army, Air Force, NASA, ERDA, 

 NOAA). The choice of site, therefore, is essen- 

 tially limited to the laboratory with the appropri- 

 ate equipment. Many of these laboratories with 

 very specialized facilities make them available to 

 qualified scientists regardless of their affiliation. 

 These laboratories assign equipment, time, serv- 

 ices, and available space in much the same way as 

 agencies review proposals, calling upon reviewers 

 and user group panels for guidance. Available fa- 

 cilities supported in full or in part by Federal 



270 



AGENCY SUPPORT OF BASIC RESEARCH BY FIELD OF SCIENCE 



