Regarding this first-ranked issue, Betsy 

 Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for 

 Science and Technology, Department of Com- 

 merce, concluded: 



The most fundamental problem, as I see it, is the 

 lack of a national science policy. To quote Dr 

 Hornig when he was Director of the Office of 

 Science and Technology and Chairman of the 

 U.S. Delegation to OECD on science policy, 

 "There is no such thing in the United States as a 

 Science Policy which can be isolated from other 

 policies of the Government." (OECD Reviews of 

 National Science Policy: United States, Paris, 

 1968, p 451). This policy deficiency has resulted 

 in a fragmented approach to science and 

 technology which has led to a less effective use of 

 science resources than might prevail with a 

 comprehensive and coherent national science 

 policy. A policy is "a standing answer to recurring 

 problems"— we need better answers. 



In several letters, respondents pointed out 

 that research — especially basic research — is not 

 something in which progress is measured in 

 days, weeks, or even months. On the other hand, 

 they noted, political issues used to generate 

 support for research are often of much shorter 

 duration than research projects. To work 

 productively, the scientist needs the ability to 

 begin a lengthy experiment or series of ex- 

 periments with a reasonable assurance that he 

 will not be forced to reorient it in midstream or 

 terminate it prematurely because of funding 

 cuts. As John W. Firor of the National Center for 

 Atmospheric Research wrote: 



The timing mismatch can lead a scientist to 

 undertake a project and then discover his support 

 dwindling or cut off before he is half-way through. 



Respondents argued that a scientist also 

 needs the freedom and flexibility to be able to 

 follow up unexpected findings which may crop 

 up in the course of his work. In the absence of 

 relatively secure funding, he may find himself 

 forced to choose the safer path of working 

 primarily on short-term experiments — which 

 may be of less scientific interest and value — in 



order to avoid the catastrophic eventuality of 

 working several years on a project and then 

 having nothing to show for it because he was 

 unable to complete it. Thus, instabilities in 

 research support may limit the productivity of 

 research beyond the constraints placed upon it 

 by the absolute level of funding. 



In a comment typical of those from the 

 intramural Federal laboratories, W. R. Lucas, 

 Director of NASA's Marshall Space Flight 

 Center, put it this way: 



The practice of funding programs on an annual 

 basis creates an instability that operates strongly 

 to the detriment of a healthy, sustained basic 

 research program. It must surely be recognized 

 that such research must fare poorly in an 

 environment characterized by uncertain sup- 

 port. . . . 



In supporting such research, short period or 

 annual funding simply does not provide the 

 degree of flexibility or freedom required to permit 

 an adequate development of the potential in- 

 herent in a given field of inquiry. Funding 

 currently applied through the close management 

 process visualizes a straight, clear-cut path 

 leading to a precise destination. Clearly the 

 concept is at odds with reality. For full develop- 

 ment, a researcher should be afforded the 

 freedom of movement that is required in any 

 process that explores the unknown. The restric- 

 tive practice of holding resource allocations 

 within tight limits frustrates this freedom and, I 

 venture to say, may well be responsible for 

 cutting short promising activity that could 

 otherwise have led to important results. A multi- 

 year funding policy, in moderation, of course, 

 would serve to release the scientist from the 

 strictures currently prevalent in close-in funding 

 practice with its attendant uncertainties. 



In comparison with the individual research 

 investigator, it was observed, the problem of 

 dependability in funding for research is com- 

 pounded for institutions, especially those big 

 science institutions which maintain large-scale 

 expensive facilities. Respondents pointed out in 

 their letters that many such big science in- 



42 



DEPENDABILITY IN FUNDING FOR RESEARCH 



