presidents and vice presidents (combined) from 

 Carnegie Research Universities I. One of these 

 officials stated the issue in this way: 



One of the problem areas adversely affecting the 

 productivity of working scientists at Rutgers, and 

 presumably at many other state universities, is 

 the faculty response to the institutional need for 

 greater public accountability. 



Such accountability, initiated by state 

 governments for a variety of reasons, but basical- 

 ly financial, while reasonable in intent, has 

 generated a variety of management devices, 

 some imposed by the State and others created by 

 the University which tended to shift faculty 

 emphasis from quality to efficiency in education 

 and scholarship. 



The management devices used include formula 

 and program budgeting, moreelaboratejustifica- 

 tion of specific programs, reordered allocation of 

 resources as well as much closer monitoring of 

 faculty time and work loads. The emphasis on 

 faculty work loads has resulted in a squeeze on 

 available time which adversely affects both 

 teaching quality and research productivity. In 

 addition, monitoring of faculty time has created a 

 trade union atmosphere which has a 

 deprofessionalizing effect on the faculty with a 

 consequent reduction, in my judgment, on 

 creativity. Of course, accountability is necessary, 

 and in some respects it has had a salutary effect 

 on the faculty, but as an overview in the manner it 

 has been addressed at Rutgers I believe it has had 

 and will continue to have detrimental effects on 

 research productivity. 



This is from James W. Green, Acting Dean of 

 the Graduate School at Rutgers. Although the 

 above comment was in terms of the demands of 

 State agencies for accountability, the problem 

 was not seen there alone. For example, William 

 F. Massy, Vice Provost for Research at Stanford 

 University, had these concerns about Federal 

 demands for accountability, and Federal 

 regulations in general: 



The second critical issue is the reduction in 

 research productivity due to the increasing 

 number of complex and uncoordinated federal 

 regulations that have been hitting research per- 

 formers. 



The impact of this is to drive upward the costs of 

 compliance with executive orders and contract 

 provisions unrelated to the work statement in the 

 research proposal. This leads to increased direct 

 charges on grants and contracts as principal 

 investigators add people to deal with these 

 regulations and the ancillary requirements put on 

 by the University's administration in order to meet 

 its obligations and keep risks at a tolerable level. 

 In addition, the University's indirect costs go up 

 for the same reasons. 



Massy here adds some quantitative informa- 

 tion. During the period from 1967 through 1974, 

 he states, the indirect costs of sponsored 

 research, instruction, and departmental 

 research at Stanford grew at an average real 

 rate of 3.4 percent. The general and ad- 

 ministrative component of these indirect costs 

 grew at a real rate of 5.9 percent per year. At the 

 same time, the real direct expenditures for all 

 research and instruction actually declined at an 

 average rate of 1.5 percent. Much of this 

 increase in general and administrative costs at a 

 time of decreasing direct costs he attributes to 

 externally imposed requirements. Examples 

 include increased demands for accountability, 

 more complex requirements and litigiousness in 

 the employee relations area, affirmative action, 

 and miscellaneous requirements of the Federal 

 procurement process. This increase occurred in 

 spite of a successful effort by the University to 

 decrease its overall general and administrative 

 budget during the same period. Massy goes on 

 to say: 



In addition to out-of-pocket costs, scarce faculty 

 time is increasingly being allocated to coping 

 with externally imposed regulations not related to 

 the scientific effort needed to perform the 

 research. Examples of individually worthwhile 

 but cumulatively burdensome requirements 

 include: ever more extensive and complex human 

 subjects reviews: animal care regulations: health, 

 safety, and radiological hazards review and 

 certification: affirmative action; and (potentially) 

 increased requirements for property control and 

 faculty time and effort reporting and documenta- 

 tion. Coming atatimewhen indirect cost rates are 

 rising (due to the reasons set forth above) and 



FREEDOM IN THE RESEARCH SYSTEM 



67 



