75 



tions have become, or are becoming, obsolescent. Some ex- 

 periments simply cannot be performed in existing facilities 

 with an earlier generation of equipment. In short, the aca- 

 demic research system in consuming its capital, and the 

 grace period during which the system could operate effec- 

 tively on earlier capital investments is running out. x 6 



Attention to the instrumentation issue continued to grow during 

 the 1980s, especially among those within the academic communi- 

 ty. 17 As the instrumentation needs of the universities expanded, 

 some academic institutions began bypassing the peer review proc- 

 ess in their attempts to secure large instrument and facility grants 

 from the Federal Government. Several controversies were ignited 

 within the scientific community when research funding requests 

 were taken directly to the floor of Congress in the form of amend- 

 ments to appropriations bills. 1 8 Examples of new research centers 

 funded by Congress in the 98th Congress without the normal peer 

 review process included an engineering center at Boston Universi- 

 ty, a vitreous-state facility at the Catholic University of America, a 

 technology-transfer center at Northwestern University, an ad- 

 vanced chemistry facility at Columbia University, and a science 

 center at the University of Oregon. 19 Concerned with this trend, 

 the governing council of the National Academy of Sciences passed 

 a resolution at its October 1983 meeting which called "upon the 

 academic community and public officials to use the time-honored 

 peer review system in the evaluation of funding proposals for feder- 

 ally funded research facilities and large scientific instruments." 20 



Congress and Science Policy 



Following the passage of the National Science and Technology 

 Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, Congress main- 

 tained a high interest in the development of science and technology 

 policies. As Congressional concerns over the health of the nation's 

 research effort grew, Representative Don Fuqua, Democrat of Flori- 

 da and Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technol- 

 ogy, decided to initiate a major study of the nation's science policy. 

 In July 1984, he created an 18-member bipartisan Task Force on 

 Science Policy within the Committee on Science and Technology. 

 Three formal planning meetings were held in August and Septem- 

 ber where Members decided what issues would be addressed in the 



16 National Academy of Sciences, Science and Technology: A Five-Year Outlook (San Francis- 

 co: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 481. 



17 See, for example, Association of American Universities, The Scientific Instrumentation 

 Needs of Research Universities: A Report to the National Science Foundation (Washington: 1980): 

 Association of American Universities, The Nation 's Deteriorating University Research Facilities. 

 A Survey of Recent Expenditures and Projects Needs in Fifteen Universities (Washington: 1981); 

 Association of American Universities, et al., Financing and Managing University Research 

 Equipment (Washington: 1985); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Technology, 

 Improving the Research Infrastructure at U.S. Universities and Colleges (98th Congress, 2nd ses- 

 sion, Washington: GOP, 1984). 



18 See Howard J. Sanders, "Peer Review: How Well Is It Working?," Chemical & Engineering 

 News, 60 (March 15, 1982), 32-43; and Donald Kennedy, "Government Policies and the Cost of 

 Doing Research," Science, 227 (February 1, 1985), 480-484. 



19 See Kim McDonald, "U.S. Science Officials Ask Congress to Stop Bypassing Peer Review of 

 Research Grants," Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 (October 3, 1984), 13. 



20 "Peer Review of Large Instrument Grants," (National Academy of Sciences) News Report, 

 33 (December 1983), 13. 



