62 



Defense research funding and the largest research program at 

 M.I.T. 16 



M.I.T. was not the first university to cut its ties with military- 

 supported classified research centers. Similar decisions were made 

 at Columbia University (Electronics Research Laboratory, 1967), 

 Cornell University (Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, 1969), Stan- 

 ford University (Stanford Research Institute, 1970), and the Univer- 

 sity of Michigan (Willow Run Laboratories, 1972). 17 



The Mansfield Amendment 



Disenchantment with military support of basic research spread 

 far beyond the nation's college campuses. In Congress, concern 

 with this issue was manifested in the so-called "Mansfield Amend- 

 ment" of 1969. This amendment was actually the controversial sec- 

 tion 203 of the military authorization bill for fiscal year 1970. 18 Al- 

 though introduced by Democratic Senator J. William Fulbright of 

 Arkansas, the amendment acquired the name of its staunch and 

 outspoken supporter, Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Mon- 

 tana. 19 In the words of section 203: 



None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this 

 Act may be used to carry out any research project or study 

 unless such a project or study has a direct or apparent re- 

 lationship to a specific military function or operation. 20 



Thus, the Mansfield Amendment sought to curtail the Department 

 of Defense from supporting general, nonmilitary-related basic re- 

 search. Supporters of the amendment argued that Federally-funded 

 basic research that sought solely to uncover fundamental knowl- 

 edge should not be buried in the budget of the mission-oriented De- 

 partment of Defense. The supporters stressed the need for Federal 

 support of basic research, and called upon the National Science 

 Foundation to provide a larger share of this funding. 21 



As a result of the Mansfield Amendment, the Department of De- 

 fense reviewed some 6,600 of its currently funded research projects, 

 and determined that roughly four percent of these projects did not 

 meet the relevancy test. 22 The Armed Services were given broader 

 latitude in their support of research projects, however, when the 

 language of the Mansfield Amendment was modified in the mili- 

 tary authorization bill for fiscal year 1971 to read: 



1 6 Prior to January 1970, the Draper Laboratory was known as the Instrumentation Laborato- 

 ry. For a detailed analysis of the factors leading to M.I.T. 's divestiture of the Draper Laboratory, 

 see Nelkin, The University and Military Research. 



17 See Bruce L. R. Smith and Joseph J. Karlesky, The State of Academic Science: The Univer- 

 sities in the Nation 's Research Effort (New York: Change Magazine Press, 1977). 



18 Public Law 91-121. 



19 See Rodney Nichols, "Mission-Oriented R&D," Science, 172 (April 2, 1971), 29. 



20 See section 203 of Public Law 91-121. 



2 ' Mario Grignetti presented several arguments for removing the sponsorship of nonmilitary 

 research from the Department of Defense at the March 4 M.I.T. protests. See Grignetti, "Some 

 Proposals to Aid Reconversion," in Allen, pp. 40-41. See also, Nichols, "Mission-Oriented R&D"; 

 Mike Mansfield, "Too Many Research Eggs in Defense Baskets?," Christian Science Monitor, 12 

 September 1970. 



22 This four percent translated into about $8.8 million out of the Department of Defense's 

 total research and development budget of $223 million. See Dorothy Bates, "The History of Fed- 

 eral Science Policy, 1787-1970," in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science and Astronau- 

 tics, Toward a Science Policy for the United States (91st Congress, 2nd session. Washington: 

 GPO, 1970), pp. 111-112. 



