23 



Preface 



In a report accompanying funding for the National Institutes of Health for 

 Fiscal Year 1995, the Senate Appropriations Committee requested a study from the 

 National Academ\' of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Insti- 

 tute of Medicine. Tlie stud\' was to address "the criteria that should be used in 

 judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, 

 the appropriate balance among different rspes of institutions that conduct such 

 research, and the means of assuring continued objectivirv' in the allocation process." 

 The stud\ originated from the Appropriations Committees concern "that at a time 

 when there is much opportunity to understand and cure disease, funding for health 

 research supported by NIH in the next fiscal year is held to below the inflation rate 

 for medical research due to budget constraints. Similarly, other Federal research 

 agencies are confronted with constrained resources resulting from the virtual freeze 

 in discretionary outlays." 



Tlic charge was daunting when it was requested by the Appropriations Com- 

 mittee and is e\en more so now. With a >ear s passage, the concern with a "virtual 

 freeze in discretionary outlays" seems an understatement. The efforts by both the 

 Administration and the Congress to reduce the federal deficit have prompted pro- 

 posals to cut programs, consolidate or abolish agencies, and even do away with 

 whole departments. The federal research and development enterprise has not been 

 exempt from examination, nor should it be. Since the end of World War II, this 

 enterprise lias become vast and complex, and it accounts for a significant part of the 

 discretionary outlays of the federal government. It is thus important that the nature 

 and structure of federal support for research and development, as well as the ben- 

 efits it brings, be understood to assure that as budgets are reduced, the strengths of 

 U.S. science and technology are maintained, while the anachronistic or weak as- 

 pects are pruned. 



The Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development 

 approached its task with realism about the budget pressures, an eagerness to pro- 

 vide ad\ice that could guide both the Executive Branch and Congress. and a con- 

 cern for fairness in evaluating the many parts of the enterprise. The committee's 

 membership reflected these aims, including individuals who perform federally 

 fimded research, who u.se the results in industry- and other sectors, who have been 

 involved in shaping federal research and development programs in the past, and 

 who are students of the research and development enterprise. 



The committee s realism about budget pressures was matched by its realism 

 about the report s immediate impact on current budgets. It is the committee's hope 

 that this report will serve well both the executive and legislative branches as they 

 grapple with the ver\' hard decisions that will have to be made over many budget 

 cycles, in a politically and fiscally difficult environment. 



The theme of the committee s report is continuance in the face of change. 

 Continuance builds on the spectacularly successful results of postwar federal invest- 



