Narrowing in on the long-term continuity of 

 funding, George K. Hirst, President and Direc- 

 tor, The Public Health Research Institute of the 

 City of New York, Inc., wrote: 



. . The second problem, assuming that our 

 municipal support continues, I would say is 

 clearly the large fluctuations in Federal support of 

 research, and I think especially basic research. It 

 has become impossible to predict from year to 

 year what the level of Federal support might be. 

 Not only does the rating at which funding is cut 

 off vary, but on top of a restrictive rate we are 

 faced with severe cuts in proposed budgets. The 

 fellowship program has been turned on and off. 

 General Research Support has been threatened 

 with extinction every year. The one to two 

 hundred thousand per year which we get under 

 this program cannot be wisely spent for any long- 

 range project because we don't know if it will 

 continue. 



I think that research people are very adaptable 

 and will make adjustments to a wide range of 

 support levels but if the fluctuations could be cut 

 out it would be a very productive thing. Is there 

 any way that Congress could be persuaded to 

 assure some level of Federal support for say 5 

 years ahead on some sort of evergreen basis? 



This topic is covered in a slightly different 

 way by Norman M. Bradburn, President, 

 National Opinion Research Center, University 

 of Chicago: 



Our primary problem now is the same as it has 

 been over the past decade and promises to be 

 over the next decade — namely continuity of 

 funding. For research institutes such as ours that 

 lack endowments or other long-term support, it is 

 extremely difficult to recruit and hold the high 

 quality scientific and technical manpower 

 necessary to do sustained basic research. This is 

 a general and well-known problem that has been 

 commented upon by every major report and 

 committee that has looked into the problems of 

 funding basic research. Nonetheless the research 

 funding agencies have consistently failed to heed 

 the warnings and, if anything, have moved in the 

 opposite direction. Some years ago we were able 

 to get five-year project grants from NSF; now we 



cannot get more than a two-year grant. There has 

 been talk about general support grants, and in the 

 past something very near to it has been possible 

 in isolated cases. Now the move is toward more 

 narrowly defined research projects with shorter 

 time horizons and with pressure toward applied 

 pay-off. The fact that the problem has been with 

 us for a long time and that things have gotten 

 worse rather than better does not detract from the 

 fundamental truth of the proposition that short- 

 term, project oriented funding is detrimental to 

 the development of research excellence in an 

 independent institute (or anywhere else for that 

 matter). 



Regarding national science policy, Charles R. 

 Wayne, Executive Vice President and General 

 Manager, SURC (Syracuse University Research 

 Corporation), stated that it is no longer possible 

 for this Nation to fund adequately every 

 problem area which it feels is in need of 

 solution: 



We should set national priorities and define 

 critical research needs: energy, conservation, 

 poverty, old age, sickness, military superiority, 

 etc. ... I am very pessimistic that we will. The 

 allocation of funds will continue to be a function 

 of factors which are themselves not necessarily 

 part of a logical long-range plan directed at our 

 overall best interests. Because of this, large sums 

 of money will be spent, although often not 

 enough to produce the desired results, in areas 

 which are fashions or fads led by charismatic 

 leaders. So while Rome burns, we, scientists, will 

 continue to fiddle. 



FEDERAL INTRAMURAL 

 LABORATORIES AND FFRDC's 



The ideas of dependability, predictability, 

 and stability in the funding of research emerged 

 over and over in the responses from the 

 intramural Federal laboratories and the 

 Federally Funded Research and Development 

 Centers (FFRDC's). These items were often 

 joined to the first-ranked issue among this 

 group of respondents — the need for a coor- 

 dinated research policy at the national level. 



DEPENDABILITY IN FUNDING FOR RESEARCH 



41 



