58 



/MPk'OVIM, TIIUAU.OCATIOS PROCESS / 33 



3 The intcrtlcpartmcntal coordination mechanism was the Federal Coordinating Council for 

 Science and Technology under Presidents Reagan and Bush, and now is the National Science and 

 lechn()log> (Council under President ("linton. 



-(. c;alculated trom Tables C-(>\ and iAil in National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for 

 Kescdich (iiul Dei'elopiiieiit. riscciDccirs IW.l 199-1. and 1995. NSF 9S-334 (Arlington. Va.: NSF/ 

 Division of Science Resources Studies, forthcoming). In 1994. the Department of Defen.se funded 59 

 percent of academic research in electrical engineering, 69 percent in metallurgy and materials 

 science, and S6 percent in computer science. 



S. The hush and Clinton administrations initiated structures and procedures that begin to 

 implement se\eral of the processes and criteria listed The last budgets of the Bush administration 

 included agency cross-cuts ' that took into account multiagenc\ initiatives. The Clinton administra- 

 tion continued this practice and also prepared a separate chapter on research and development as 

 part of the President s budget (I lie Hiidfict of the I iiited States Goivniuient. Fiscal Year 1990. 

 Chapter ". ln\esting in Science and Technology. 199S) The man\ activities of the .National Science 

 and lechnology Council are sunimari/ed in its .Accomplishments Report. 1993- 1995," Office of 

 Science and Technolog\ PolicN. i;.\ecuti\e Office of the President. 199S. 



(v .\llen Schick, tlw Ivclcnil liitil^icl: Politics. Policy. Process (Washington. D.C.: The 

 Brookings Institution. 199S); Willis II Shaplev. Ihe Biid}>ct Process and R€-D (New Wnk: Carnegie 

 Commission on Science. Technologv. and (io\ernment. 1992). 



~. Carnegie Commission on Science. I'echnolog). and Ciovernment..St7V;/te. Technology, and 

 (.on}iress: Ortianizatioii and Procedural Pe/orDis (New^■ork: Carnegie Commission on .Science. 

 Tech nolog\. and dovernnient. 199*) 



•S. These criteria are adapted Irom the Committee on Science. Engineering, and Public Pt)licy 

 (National .\cadem\ of Sciences. National .\cadem\ of F.ngineering. and Institute of Medicine), .Sae;icf. 

 ivchnolotix and the letleral (.oiernnient: Sational (,oalsf>r a Xeir Fra (Washington. D.C.: 

 N.itioiial .Xcadenn Press. 1993) 



9 Ihroughout this report, the it:rmfetlertil lahoratories refers to laboratories owned and 

 operated b\ the leileral goxernment (including intramural laboratories), laboratories owned by the 

 feileral go\ernment Inii operated li\ contractors (including the national laboratories administered b\ 

 DOl:). and other ITRDCs .See Box 11.6 for an explanation 



Id Department of Defense. Department of Defense Response to \STC/PRD I. Presidential 

 Rciiew Directiiv on an Interagency Reriew of Federal Laboratories. February 24. 1995; Depart- 

 ment of Defense. Draft Interim Report to the \ational Science and Technology Council. Presiden- 

 tial Reiieir Directiiv I. October 12. 1994; Defense Science Board. Laboratory .Management 

 Interim /?e/>o;f. background for the Base Closure and Realignment 1995 (BRAC 95 Addendum), April 

 3. 1995 Collecti\el\. these three reports are known as the Dorman Repon. 



NASA Federal Laboratorx Review Task Force. NASA Advisory Council. A>1.SV1 Federal Lalxtratory 

 Rerieic (Foster Report) (Washington. D(^.: NASA. February 1995). 



Task Force on Alternaii\e Futures for the DOE National Laboratories, /l//erwfl//'rc' Futures for the 

 Department of Fneriiy \atioiial Laboratories (dalvin Report) (AVashington, DC: Department of 

 l!nerg\. February 1995) 



Ad Hoc Working Croup of the National Cancer Advisory Board. A Revieic of the Intramural 

 Proiiram of the \ational Cancer Institute (Bishop/Calabresi Repon) (Bethesda. Md.: National 

 Institutes of Health. June 26. 1995); External Advisory Committee of the Director s Advisory Commit- 

 tee. The Intramural Research Proi^rani (Cassell/Marks Report) (Bethesda. Md.: National Institutes of 

 Health. April 11, 1994) 



