stipends and course offerings? Will the facilities 

 so acquired be useful or become a burden in a few 

 years? etc., etc. 



Faculty appointments represent an investment 

 for long periods, probably 10 to 20 years or more. 

 Students, graduate and professional, have 

 careers ahead which demand three, four or more 

 years of preparation. These are the time scales of 

 academia. Federal agencies, on the other hand, 

 drop programs quickly when immediate man- 

 power needs shift or new ventures appear that 

 seem to be politically more saleable. 



How, then, do we meet our common goals via our 

 separate sets of rules? Important programs are 

 now on stream, RANN among others. How do we 

 avoid the pitfalls that befell these otherattempts? 



In summary, one may provide a litany of issues 

 which develop from the different planning 

 assumptions in our two sectors; different percep- 

 tions of what may be required to meet common 

 goals; different time scales inherent in each 

 sector's life style. These are knotty issues but they 

 have to be solved before a serious problem 

 materializes on the higher education front. Some 

 first-rank institutions will probably collapse. Is 

 that the price the nation must pay before the 

 system is corrected? 



These comments and those that follow 

 illustrate the reasons why questions related to 

 continuity, stability, and length of funding 

 ranked second among each of the three groups of 

 respondents from the universities: presidents, 

 vice-presidents, and chairmen. 



Herbert W. Schooling, Chancellor, University 

 of Missouri-Columbia, wrote about continuity 

 and stability problems in the past and how they 

 might be remedied: 



... I believe we have learned that funding 

 procedures which have been erratic and sporadic 

 have not given the universities the opportunity to 

 create and maintain always the kind of climate in 

 which higher education, as a community of 

 scholars seeking truth, could best serve as 

 partners with the government in advancing 

 knowledge. Brief periods of funding have tended 

 to make institutions vie intensely for grants on a 

 thin and broaa basis which did not allow for the 



development of a concentrated team of 

 researchers, appropriate machinery, and 

 graduate students who are necessary for on- 

 going work of high quality, excepting the medical 

 sciences. Designations of certain communitiesof 

 scholars interested in and capable of significant 

 research in certain areas which are of critical 

 interest to the nation's needs would provide a way 

 to establish and maintain relationships which 

 may continue forperiodsof timeof adecadeorso 

 without interruption under normal cir- 

 cumstances. 



Also from within the university community, 

 Jerome B. Wiesner, President of M.I.T., ex- 

 pressed the problem of continuity and stability 

 as follows: 



The fluctuations in Federal funding of basic 

 research which we have seen recently are 

 extremely damaging. The upswing to 1968 and 

 the precipitate decrease since then have led to 

 serious imbalances between fields; to an ap- 

 parent lack of opportunity in some fields which 

 drives good young people away, only to present 

 us with "shortages" in the future; to the destruc- 

 tion of many research teams carefully assembled 

 over many years of effort; to the underutilization 

 of important facilities and in some cases to their 

 premature demise. A long-range science policy 

 which gives some assurance of continuity is 

 badly needed. 



In the view of John R. Silber, President of 

 Boston University: 



Research programs which provide only short- 

 term support, or faddish changes in the kinds of 

 programs which are being encouraged, will be 

 extremely detrimental to scientific research, to 

 institutions, and to individuals. Slightly fewer 

 grants of longer duration for truly significant 

 projects would provide a stability in research 

 which counters the instability of the enrollment 

 declines and inflationary forces. 



The importance of dependability in funding 

 for research as seen at the department chairman 

 level is expressed by T. T. Sandel of the 

 Department of Psychology, Washington Un- 

 iversity, St. Louis: 



For the last three years, we have proceeded from 



38 



DEPENDABILITY IN FUNDING FOR RESEARCH 



