the impact that large Federal subsidies were 

 having upon the Nation's institutions of higher 

 education. In 1959 Charles V. Kidd published an 

 influential study of American Universities and 

 Federal Research, the thesis of which was "that 

 large-scale Federal financing of research has set 

 in motion irreversible forces that are affecting 

 the nature of universities, altering their capaci- 

 ty to teach, changing their financial status, 

 modifying the character of parts of the Federal 

 administrative structure, establishing new 

 political relations, and changing the way 

 research itself is organized. " 45 The expansion of 

 Federal R&D following Sputnik, especially 

 through creation of the National Aeronautics 

 and Space Administration and the National 

 Defense Education Act, greatly increased 

 Federal R&D spending. At the end of the decade, 

 the historian A. Hunter Dupree said that "for the 

 first time since the period 1945-47 the United 

 States is in the midst of shaping a new science 

 policy. The old government-university 

 partnership (has) already lost its basic 

 rationale. . . " 4li 



The academic science establishment par- 

 ticularly, based on a government-university 

 partnership, was threatened from the inside by 

 its own growth even as it was buffeted by 

 repercussions from the war in Southeast Asia 

 and the growing environmental crisis. Even 

 while funds for fellowships, research, and 

 facilities were growing during the 1960s, the 

 increasing number of scientists wanting sup- 

 port lowered the per capita subsidy to each. 

 Between 1964 and 1970 the proportion of Ph.D. 

 academic staff in science receiving Federal 

 support and engaged in basic research fell (for 

 all fields) from 69 percent to 57 percent. During 

 this same period, research funds (both Federal 

 and other) per scientist and engineer in 

 doctorate-granting institutions dropped from 

 $13,138 to $11,826 (in constant 1961 dollars). To 

 make matters worse, research support based on 



teaching responsibilities was undermined by 

 the fact that by 1971 students declaring majors 

 in physics, engineering, chemistry, and 

 mathematics were declining. And to top off the 

 problem, by 1971 although employment rates 

 for scientists and engineers were better than for 

 all workers, unemployment of scientists under 

 30 years of age was over 5 percent. 4? The 

 prosperity of the sixties was proving to be less 

 than wholly self-sustaining. 



With the coming of the 1970's the once 

 relatively prosperous and apparently stable 

 science structure began to show vulnerability in 

 two additional major areas: the proper measur- 

 ing of effort between basic and applied research 

 and the proper division of responsibility in 

 science between military and civilian agencies. 

 Behind both of these lay the changing roleofthe 

 Cold War as a justification for the Federal 

 commitment to R&D efforts. Initiatives aimed at 

 easing of international tensions between the 

 great powers, and a new awareness of such 

 domestic problems as decaying cities, 

 deteriorating public health and safety, shor- 

 tages of energy and materials, and increasing 

 pollution tested the flexibility of the science 

 establishment. As new demands on the Federal 

 budget competed with established R&D 

 programs, it was inevitable that the cost- 

 effectiveness of basic research should again be 

 questioned. 



Some attempts to answer questions about the 

 cost/effectiveness of basic research took the 

 form of case histories for technological in- 

 novations. The Department of Defense 

 preliminarily released Project Hindsight in 

 1966; 4 " the National Science Foundation funded 

 Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in 



IS Charles V Kidd American Universities and Federal 



Research (Cambridge 1959), p. v. 



111 Editorial in Science, 169 [July 10, 197(1). 



17 Science Indicators— 1972, pp. 120. 121. 121). 130, 131. 

 '" Chalmers VV. Sherwin and Raymond S. Isenson, "Project 

 Hindsignt," Science, 156 (June 23, 1967) 1571-1577. Also, 

 Raymond S. Isenson, Office ol the Director of Defense 

 Research and Engineering, Protect Hindsight Final Report 

 (Washington, 1969), Available from National Technical 

 Information Sei \ ice as AD 495-905. 



18 RESEARCH IN THE UNI TED STATES 



