200 



enter the fray. Coordination among these organizations is difficult at best. And while research 

 communities set priorities within their areas, peer review (to cite the premier quality control 

 mechanism) is not suited to making judgments across scientific fields, much less among agency 

 missions or national goals. The point is that there is no accepted model for setting priorities across 

 the Federal research system. Each agency determines what to support and sets priorities through 

 a rhnnging interpretation of the agency's mission. 



OTA concluded that although scientific merit and mission relevance must always be the chief 

 criteria used to judge an agency program's potential worth, they cannot always be the sole criteria. 

 Two other criteria would help meet the Nation's future research investment needs: strengthening 

 education and human resources at all stages of study (e.g., increasing the diversity and 

 versatility of participants); and building regional and instimtioiuil capacity (including economic 

 development by matching Federal research support with funds from other sources).^ Facilities are a 

 prominent feature of this latter criterion. 



HistoricaUy, the Federal share of capital expenditures for academic facilities (which include 

 both research and teaching facilities) has never topped one-third of the total. For public universities, 

 SO to 60 percent of facilities funds come from the States and 30 percent from bond issues (see exhibit 

 3).'* The crux of the facilities problem is that academic centers always "need" new or renovated 

 buildings. Even though need may not readily be quantified, demand unquestionably exists.^ 



The wisdom of investments in research infrastructure could be determined by analysis of the 

 research to be conducted in each new facility. Unfortunately, there is no acceptable method for 



3 Ibid., pp. 15-16. 



* Michael Davey, Bricks and Mortar: A Summary and Analysis of Proposals to Meet Research Facilities 



Needs on College Campuses (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1987). 



^ For example, when the National Science Foundation (NSF) solicited proposals for a $20 million program 



in 1989 to fund facilities needs, it received over 400 proposals totaling $300 million in requests. Jeffrey Mervis, 



"Institutions Respond in Large Numbers to Tiny Facilities Program at NIH, NSF,' The Scientist, vol. 4, Apr. 16, 



1990, p. 2. 



