search. The response from ERDA is representa- 

 tive of the responses of the agencies: 



... it is generally true that there has been, in 

 recent years, both internally and externally, a 

 proliferation of bureaucratic procedures, re- 

 quirements, uncertainties in organization and 

 calls for ever increasing paperwork and stud- 

 ies — all of which have absorbed large propor- 

 tions of the time of program administrators and 

 laboratory and university investigators. Ineffi- 

 ciencies are one consequence. An even greater 

 concern is the tendency of these demands to 

 dispel creativity and vision. 

 The Navy response to the question about im- 

 pending regulations covers a variety of details but 

 also comments on the reporting regulations. It 

 says: 



Any policy or regulation which restricts the 

 way in which funds can be spent eventually 

 impedes the conduct and/or support of re- 

 search. The limitations from Congress which 

 come under the general heading of Incremental 

 Funding have in the last few years caused a 

 certain amount of disruption. Although the 

 Congressional requirements for Incremental 

 Funding were considerably softer for 6.1 funds 

 spent at universities, there was still an impact. 



This last year the restriction on the amount of 

 money which can be spent at Navy laboratories 

 has caused significant disruption in the research 

 program. Certain laboratories have unique facil- 

 ities and/or people with unique talents. The In- 

 House/Out-House Ratio has had the effect of 

 denying to the Navy, at least temporarily, ac- 

 cess to the best people and facilities for doing 

 certain research. The impact from the laborato- 

 ries' points of view has been disruptive and 

 demoralizing. 



Increasingly, the Armed Services Procurement 

 Regulations (ASPR) impede the support of re- 

 search. ASPR was not written with the objec- 

 tive of facilitating the support of research. 

 More complaints are heard every day from 

 university administrators and research scientists 

 concerning the difficulties in meeting all of the 

 requirements for doing research for the De- 

 fense Department. 



Questions of sole source procurement have 

 become an impediment in the support of re- 

 search. 



All of these issues tend to pale when compared 

 with the impact that recent personnel policies 

 may have on Naval Research. Restrictions on 

 numbers and grades of scientific and technical 



personnel can eventually bring the total Navy 

 research program to a state of applied mediocri- 

 ty. 



It may appear ironic to people outside the Fed- 

 eral bureaucracy that agency administrators are 

 complaining about reporting, red tape, and Feder- 

 al regulations. It should be remembered that, for 

 the most part, the scientists in administrative and 

 laboratory positions are seldom the originators of 

 such regulations. They are required to respond to 

 the Office of Management and Budget (0MB) and 

 congressional requirements and they have the same 

 feelings, in many cases, as people outside the Gov- 

 ernment. They complain but also say they under- 

 stand why regulations are required. 



Basic-Applied Research Classification 

 and the Mansfield Amendment 



Many agencies regard the increasing emphasis 

 on applied research as the major barrier to the 

 conduct of basic research. The pressure of to- 

 day's problems and missions detracts from the 

 optimum support of basic research. It is also stat- 

 ed that in a period of shrinking budgets basic re- 

 search is downgraded in priority. In the National 

 Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

 basic research funding was reduced from $380 

 million in FY 1969 to $320 million in FY 1977. 

 The ups and downs of basic research funding for 

 agencies (see Introduction) must have a num- 

 ber of causes, but the applied mission priority is 

 cited as one important cause. 



The statistics, however, can be confusing due 

 to different ways of classifying research. As the 

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

 (NOAA) points out, its support of fundamental 

 research on atmospheric processes and character- 

 istics is reported as applied research because it 

 relates to its mission in weather forecasting. On 

 the other hand, when NSF supports the same re- 

 search it is classified as basic. Also, the statistical 

 classifications may be flexible in responding to the 

 fashions and priorities of the time, so what one 

 agency classifies as basic research another might 

 define as applied. 



In October 1974, the National Science Board 

 adopted a resolution encouraging mission agencies 

 "to maintain strong basic research programs in 

 areas that have the potential of contributing to 

 their mission objectives." This was done at a time 

 following substantial Government budget reduc- 

 tions in support of basic research. In addition to 

 budget reductions, many agencies had dropped 

 laboratory support outside their own laboratories 



BARRIERS TO OPTIMUM SUPPORT AND CONDUCT OF BASIC RESEARCH BY THE MISSION AGENCIES 285 



