166 3 9999 05984 245 8 



3. During your testimony you mentioned that half of federal funding for 

 civilian research supports graduate students. Would you estimate, on aver- 

 age, the cost of support of producing a Ph.D. during their graduate edu- 

 cation program? 



With regard to graduate education, Dr. Press mentioned he guessed that graduate 

 students contribute to 50% of the research output of the research universities (not 

 of all performers of R&D). That is a judgment based on experience and a profes- 

 sional lifetime of both working with graduate students and seeing their role in cre- 

 ating new knowledge. It is a distinctive characteristic, and a great strength of the 

 American science and technology enterprise, that federal support of projects in uni- 

 versities produces outstanding research results and at the same time gives our stu- 

 dents the best education and training in the world, because graduate students and 

 even some undergraduates get practical experience as research assistants working 

 on cutting edge research. That double benefit is a large part of the reason that, on 

 balance, the report favors support of S&T in universities (this advantage obviously 

 would not hold where other institutions have unique facilities or the work applies 

 closely to an agency mission). 



As to the specific question posed about the average cost of producing a new PhD, 

 the committee did not address that issue, and cannot comment on it. It is true that 

 the federal government provides some of the support for doctoral education through 

 various means, primarily by paying for research assistants on federally supported 

 research projects, and it also supports many graduate fellowships and traineeships. 

 At the same time, the supported graduate students make a substantial contribution 

 to the research produced with federal funds. The National Science Foundation annu- 

 ally surveys graduate students in science and engineering, asking whether students 

 are serving as teaching assistants (TAs), research assistants (RAs), or in some other 

 capacity. A recent survey found that in the fall of 1992, of the 300,000 full-time 

 graduate students in S&E at PhD granting institutions, RAships were the main 

 source of support for 85,000, TAships for 63,000, and fellowships and traineeships 

 for 43,000 — the rest had other sources (including federally guaranteed loans). 



NSF also keeps track of how many graduate students are supported by its re- 

 search grants, at least according to the approved grant budgets. A background paper 

 prepared for the committee on where the basic research dollar goes noted that about 

 10 percent of the $2 billion NSF provided in extramural grants in FY 1994 went 

 for the support of graduate student RAs — more than 21,000 of them. 



4. There is a lack of discussion in the report of the purpose of federally 

 funded R&D. The United States supports this significant taxpayer invest- 

 ment because it is a vibrant and essential investment in our future, our 

 economy, our national security, our health care and our quality of life. Al- 

 though the report cites many of the spectacular examples the benefits flow- 

 ing from federal R&D investment, it does not explicitly consider such na- 

 tional objectives in defining priorities. For the layperson, who does not 

 have a clear understanding of these objectives, the report creates the im- 

 pression that the NAS committee reflects only the point of view of FS&T 

 funding recipients. How would you describe the broader purpose of FS&T 

 funding, and how are these broader purposes to linked to developing re- 

 search funding priorities? 



It is true that the report did not devote a specific section to the issues raised by 

 this question, but then it was not in the mandate from the Senate Appropriations 

 Committee. However, the report is well leavened throughout by both examples of 

 the national gains from federal investments in science and technology and the goals 

 that warrant continuing support. See, for example, pages 3, 6-7, 31-32, 47-50, and 

 70-76. Throughout the report the committee argues for both the rich results from 

 fifty years of federal investments in science and technology and some of the poten- 

 tial future advances. The committee chose to pose its argument for the national 

 value of federal investments on the rich interactions fostered by those decades of 

 investments between academia and industry, between graduate education and 

 movement of new knowledge into application, and the strong if complex relationship 

 between science and technology fostered by federal policies. 



■ O 



