59 



34 / IMPROMyC THEALLOCAT/Oy PROCESS 



National Science and Technoiogj' ConncU. Interagency Federal Laboratory' Revieiv. Final Report 

 (NSTC Repon) (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technolog)' Policy, May 15, 1995). 



1 1 . Federal Laboraton' Review Panel, Report of the Wljtte House Science Council (Packard 

 Report) (Washington, D.C.: Office of Science and Technology Polio-, May 1983); Bishop/Calabresi 



, Report, 1995; Dorman Report, 1995. 



12. Alan K. Campbell, Stephen J. Lukasik. and Michael G.H. McGeary, eds.. Improving the 

 Recruitment. Retention, and Utilization of Federal Scientists and Engineers (Washington. D.C.: 

 National Academy Press, 1993); Foster Report, 1995: Dorman Report, 1995; Cassell/Marks Report. 

 1994: Alan L. Dean and Harold Seidman, Options for Organizational and Management Reform for 

 the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (Washington, D.C.: National 

 Academ\ of Public Administration, July 1988); Institute of Medicine, .4 Healthy i\/H Intramural 

 Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies-' (Washington, D.C.: National Acadcm\ 

 Press, 1988). 



13. Foster Report, 1995, p. 9. 



14. Michael E. Davey, DOD's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers. CRS 

 Repon for Congress 95-489, Science Polio' Research Division, Librar\' of Congress (Washington, D.(;.: 

 Congressional Research Service, April 13, 1995): Office of Technolog)' Assessment, De/)«rf;;/c';// of 

 Defense Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (Washington. D.C.: U.S. Government 

 Printing Office, June 1995); Defense Science Board Task Force, Tlie Role of Federally Funded Re- 

 search e- Development Centers in the Mission of the Department of Defense (Wtishihgton. DC: 

 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technolog) , April 1995). 



15 Dorman Repon. 1995: Foster Repon, 1995; Galvin Repon, 1995: Packard Repon, 1983: 

 NSTC Repon. 1995. 



16. Calculated from Table C-154a in National Science Foundation. Federal Funds for Research 

 and Development: Fiscal Years 1992. 1993, and 199~i. NSF 94-328 (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of 

 Science Resources Studies, 1995). 



1" Defense Science BoardTask Force, The Role of Federally Funded Research & Development 

 Centers in the Mission of the Department of Defense. 1995. 



18. The Foster Repon (1995) specifically recommends that NASA laboratories reduce their 

 insularit) . enhance tics with universities, and adopt the personnel and management practices of the 

 only major NASA FFRDC, the Jet Propulsion Laboraton', which is associated with the California 

 Institute of Technology. 



19 Galvin Repon. 1995, p. 4. 



20 Galvin Report. 1995. Other anah ses of the DOE-supponed national laboratories and their 

 futures have concluded that carefully planned diversification could be useful if done well. Barr\- 

 Bozeman (Georgia Institute of Technology-) and Michael Crow (Columbia Univcrsin-). who drew on a 

 large body of past research in a repon for the Department of Commerce on the role of all federal 

 laboratories (Federal Laboratories in the .\ational Innovation System: Policy Implications of the 

 Sational Comparative Research and Development Project. May 1995), note that the purposes of 

 various laboratories vary- tremendously. Ann Markusen and colleagues at Rutgers Universin- exam- 

 ined Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories and concluded that there is a restricted stock of 

 knowledge and technology that is no longer secret (Ann Markusen, James Raffcl, Michael Odcn, and 

 Marlen Uanes, Coming in from the Cold: The Future of Los Alamos and Sandia Sational Labora- 



