the use of funds would not be greatly different. 



In his letter, C. E. Hathaway, Head, Depart- 

 ment of Physics, Kansas State University, 

 Manhattan, suggested a two-fold approach to 

 insuring the vitality of university science 

 departments. His solution would insert younger 

 people into the system and also address the 

 problem of productivity of university science 

 and engineering faculties. 



To alleviate this problem, there is a need for a two 

 prong approach. Universities should be induced 

 to consider early retirement forfaculty. Thisearly 

 retirement should be sufficiently attractive so as 

 not to punish retiring faculty. Such retirements 

 could make room for younger faculty. 



In addition, a program should be initiated to 

 encourage faculty sabbaticals. In particular, a 

 program whereby NSF and universities shared 

 the expense of faculty sabbaticals could provide 

 sufficient inducement to universities such that a 

 more realistic attitude toward the need for 

 sabbatical leaves could evolve. A premium of 

 value could be placed on sabbatical leaves aimed 

 at training to enter a new field or subfield. This 

 would encourage cross-fertilization, both within 

 fields and between fields. 



Frankly, although I have listed the funding of 

 fundamental research as the number one 

 problem and an aging static faculty as the number 

 two problem, the second may be the most 

 detrimental in the long range. Funding of 

 fundamental research can always be increased, 

 but once a researcher begins to decrease in 

 productivity, it is doubtful the same aggressive 

 attitude of earlier years can be re-kindled. 



As was mentioned earlier, respondents 

 associated with Federal laboratories were also 

 concerned about a relative lack of job oppor- 

 tunities for new graduates. Static or declining 

 budgets as well as personnel ceilings were said 

 to limit their ability to hire additional staff 

 members. With the job market tight, relatively 

 few people leave voluntarily, several 

 respondents suggested, and laboratories tend to 

 develop a staff "aging" problem. John E. Naugle, 

 Acting Associate Administrator of NASA, put 

 it this way: 



Severe personnel ceilings constrict mobility of 

 scientists, discourage young people from enter- 

 ing research fields, and cause most laboratories 

 to age — every year a year older. Young, recently 

 trained people are the capital endowment of our 

 technological society. We must replenish this 

 capital at a faster rate than today's, by en- 

 couraging and assisting graduate education in 

 the sciences, and making spaces for new 

 graduates in research institutions. 



His views were echoed by W. H. Tallent, 

 Acting Director, Northern Regional Research 

 Center, Agricultural Research Service: 



Personnel ceilings are preventing us from bring- 

 ing in fresh talent right out of graduate school. 

 With their very latest knowledge of scientific 

 theory and practice and with their innovativeness 

 not yet dampened by experience and maturity, 

 these eager young professionals can be the very 

 lifeblood of a progressive research staff. 



It is interesting to note that respondents from 

 FFRDC's did not stress these issues as strongly 

 as directors of Federal intramural laboratories 

 and agency officials. 



Respondents from independent research 

 institutes also spoke of a need to bring in new 

 Ph.D.'s. For example, George Z. Williams, 

 Director, Institute of Health Research, In- 

 stitutes of Medical Sciences, San Francisco, 

 noted: 



. . . there is no general support for bringing on 

 new staff (particularly "unproven" younger 

 scientists) and initiating new research pilot 

 projects. Therefore, it is difficult to attract new 

 scientists, even those with proven capabilities: 

 They must accept the hazards of a time-restricted 

 grant and the uncertainty of further support. 



And Atherton Bean, Chairman, Mayo Foun- 

 dation, Rochester, Minn., wrote: 



... a further consequence of this desire for rapid 

 answers leads to increased allocation of funds for 

 contracts and for center grants to the detriment of 

 funding for basic biomedical research. In all of 

 this, the young investigator is especially 

 vulnerable, since support for research training 

 waxes and wanes in unpredictable ways, and as 



52 



VITALITY OF THE RESEARCH SYSTEM 



