to absorb too much of the time and 

 creative eneroy of the scientists, then 

 the two acti\ ities become competiti\ e. 

 Before the war, in all but a few of 

 the most prosperous unixersities, 

 teaching loads were excessixe from 

 the standpoint of optimal research 

 output.' The need to make up for 

 the wartime deferment of training 

 may necessitate the "acceleration" of 

 educational programs to a three-term 

 basis for some years after the war. 

 again with harmful effects to re- 

 search. 



To' the well-trained uni\'ersit\' sci- 

 entist now enoaoed in war work, the 

 immediate academic outlook may 

 haye lost some of its appeal, espe- 

 cially if he is research minded. For 

 during the war he has had. perhaps 

 for the first time in his life, the fa 

 cilities and assistance to carry on re 

 search in a really efficient wav. At 

 the same time, industrial laboratories 



will be bidding eagerly for his serv- 

 er o 



ices. Uni\ersity salaries tend to be 

 low compared with those in industry 

 and tKere has been a steady flow of 

 unix'ersity scientists into industrial 

 laboratories. Since one of the most 

 important fruits of pure research is 

 the creation of outstanding applied 

 research men, it is \ery much in the 

 national interest that this mo\ement 

 take place in some degree. But in the 

 immediate postwar period there is 

 danger that an undue number of 

 trained individuals may go into in- 

 dustry, stripping the uni\'ersities of 

 those who are most competent to 

 teach a new generation of research 

 workers. It is of the utmost impor- 

 tance, therefore, to maintain a fa- 

 vorable competiti\e position for uni- 

 x-ersities relati\'e to industr\'. 



Paradoxically, increasing the teach- 

 ing load of uni\ersity scientists to 



^ See appendix B. 



meet postwar demands may intensify 

 the teaching shortage through its 

 tendencN to encourage transfers to 

 industry. A number of partial solu- 

 tions suggest themseh-es, each being 

 possible onK' if financial support is 

 a\'ailable to make research opportuni- 

 ties mcne plentiful and teaching more 

 attractixe. Numerous scientists on 

 war work may be encouraged to re- 

 turn to their unixersities; many of 

 the newly trained war scientists may 

 be encouraged to remain in the uni- 

 versities; competent scientists who 

 before the war were in institutions 

 with \'er\' little science teaching may 

 be transferred to the more active cen- 

 ters; finally, unixersities may decide 

 to alter teaching methods and size of 

 classes for at least a few years after 

 the war. These are important short- 

 run makeshifts. In the long run the 

 solution will be found in the training 

 of more scientists. 



It is also \'itally important that 

 sufficient laboratory assistance, mate- 

 rials, apparatus, clerical and manual 

 aid be provided for those university 

 staff members who are undertaking 

 research in the natural sciences. It 

 is anomalous, to say the least, that 

 unixersities and colleges should hire 

 first-class scientists, equip them with 

 offices and laboratories, and then fail 

 to proA'ide them with the supple- 

 mentary funds necessary for produc- 

 ti\'e research. No industrial labora- 

 tory would be so imprudent as to use 

 the time of highly paid staff members 

 for doing shop work. 



A survey was made by this com- 

 mittee to make possible a quantitative 

 comparison of the support of research 

 in universities, nonprofit research in- 

 stitutions and industrial laboratories 

 during the prewar \'ears. The aim 

 was to disco\'er just how nearly the 

 unixersities were approximating the 



92 



