The materials research and development program of the federal government has played a major role over the past two decades in shaping the whole field of MSE as it is today—its institutions, scope, research activities, and educational endeavors. The federal program has evolved from modest beginnings after World War II to its present significant scale of activity, corresponding to a total level of funding of more than a quarter of a billion dollars of direct federal support. Such growth is associated largely with responses to legislative recognition, as matters of public policy, of the changing character and scale of national needs and goals. The current magnitude and distribution among federal agencies of direct funding for materials R&D is summarized in Table 7.27, which demonstrates both the range of agencies involved and the relative emphasis of effort. Table 2.14* shows the distributing agency emphasis on classes of material.

The forces and motivations that influenced the major directions of the federal materials program over this period have included political, economic, and technical concerns. In the years immediately following the end of World War II, during the period of the “cold war,” the need was recognized for an increased effort in defense-related materials, both conventional and nuclear. Thus, the major national laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) were established during this period, and there was a large buildup in the electronics industry of materials research in support of Defense Department (DoD) interests. In 1954, the Atoms for Peace program launched by President Eisenhower led to the AEC charter being amended and broadened, with the agency being charged with the responsibility of furthering the “development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”—such as civilian power plants and isotope utilization in industry—and of generally insuring that the nation stayed in the lead in nuclear science and technology. These developments had the direct effect of enlarging the scope of the AEC materials R&D programs, particularly in basic research.

The dramatic and successful flight of the first earth-orbiting satellite in October 1957 by the Soviet Union sharply influenced U.S. government activities in scientific research and related education. The corresponding emergence in the late fifties of “conquest of space” as a new U.S. national goal resulted in a new agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In a few years after Sputnik, the federal budget for materials R&D nearly doubled. The concept of an interdisciplinary approach to materials research, which had been slowly developing, was given a strong stimulation through the establishment of a multi-million dollar program of Interdisciplinary Materials Research Laboratories (IDL’s) at a number of universities by the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) of DoD, together with analogous efforts by the AEC and, on a more modest scale, by the NASA. These efforts, which are discussed in more detail in the subsequent section on University Education and Research, were directed to expanding the materials research effort in the universities and, correspondingly, its output of Ph.D.’s specializing in materials. Increasing the quality of materials research and

education through improved instrumentation and facilities, and promotion of interdisciplinary cooperation were also major objectives. With the development of these various federally-supported materials research facilities at universities, the concept of a mission-oriented agency supporting basic research not necessarily related to its direct interests was established. This concept was not to be questioned until the late 1960’s.

Now, in the 1970’s, the forces and national needs which influenced the program in the sixties are still valid, although with dimished urgency. Some new concerns have made their debut in the last few years—concerns that are oriented toward society’s more immediate interests, such as pollution control, health care, improved transportation, housing, etc. Some of the effects of these new pressures are already evident: the AEC charter was amended in 1968 to permit it to participate in environmental studies; expenditures on space have been drastically reduced; and the ARPA IDL’s have been transferred from DoD to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The full import of these changes, however, is yet to be seen.

Before discussing the details of federal materials funding and the relevant activities of the principal agencies, it is appropriate to review briefly the role of agency interaction and coordination. For materials R&D, this role has had several singular features which illustrate the recognition accorded to materials in the overall federal program. Within a relatively short period after the creation by President Eisenhower in November 1957 of the Office of Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the need for an effective mechanism to coordinate such federal agency activities led to the formation of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), and the earliest committee of the FCST, created in the first month of its existence (March 1959), was the Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD). The initial activity of CCMRD was the recommendation, based on considerable earlier discussion, that eventually led to the establishment of the Interdisciplinary Materials Laboratories mentioned above. Subsequently, the Committee proved an effective mechanism for information exchange and cooperative interagency analyses of materials areas of common concern. Such studies were directed to major materials barriers standing in the way of necessary technological progress (the Road Blocks Study), character and costs to the nation of materials degradation by corrosion, opportunities in biomaterials research, etc.

Over the first decade of the FCST, as the strength of federal R&D programs expanded within the individual agencies, the pressures of such activities tended to weaken the interest of the agencies in coordination and joint efforts through the FCST. The increasing difficulty experienced by CCMRD in getting responsive FCST or agency action to the recommendations in its reports is an illustration of this trend (see, for example, the testimony by W.O.Baker, Hearings of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, 19 July 1973). In July 1969, as an outcome of these difficulties, the then President’s Special Assistant for Science and Technology, also the Chairman of the FCST, dissolved the CCMRD along with several other committees.

In December of the same year, the Chairman initiated the Interagency Committee on Materials (ICM) as a “novel element” of the FCST in that it was partly sponsored in collaboration with the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences, i.e. outside the federal agency system. The newly reconstituted National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) of the NRC was designated as the formal liaison to the ICM—the membership of which remained solely officials of the federal agencies having materials R&D activities or interests. The ICM reestablished the coordination and interaction efforts of its predecessor, and expanded membership or observer status to a wider range of agencies (including all those in Table 7.27), in recognition of a broadening of national issues in which materials are significant—for example, health and housing. Despite certain advantages in the new arrangement, the difficulties of implementation encountered in the earlier era do not appear to have been overcome. Following the Federal Reorganization of 1973, including the President’s designation of the Director of the National Science Foundation as the Science Adviser to the President in July 1973, the new Chairman of FCST has indicated a concern for the improvement of the strength and effectiveness of the Council and, specifically, the interagency activities in materials.

In pursuing national goals, the government has financed the development of a substantial capability for R&D in materials. The rate of funding for this capability grew to significant proportions in the decade following World War II, and then increased by almost a factor of ten in the six to eight years following Sputnik. This capability consists of a large number of university programs with the capacity to train students in research, extensive research staffs in governmental laboratories, federal contract research centers, and federally-supported activities or facilities in industrial laboratories.

The direct federal support of materials R&D is shown in Figure 2.8* in actual dollars and 1964 dollars ⁷ , over the period 1962 to 1971. It is seen that the support in current dollars increased some 40% over that period—from $0.18 billion in 1962 to $0.26 billion in 1971. However, the number of people who can be supported in a given year (as a direct measure of actual effort) is proportional to the value of that year’s appropriation in 1964 dollars. Thus, the number of workers supported by the government peaked in FY 1966, and from FY 1966 to FY 1971 dropped about 15%. This closely follows the pattern for all federal R&D funding in that period. ⁸ The effective decline in governmental support, coupled with the record production of new

graduates, became one of the main reasons for the tightness of the job market.

The federal expenditure for materials R&D in FY 1971 was some $0.26 billion. Various classifications of interest within this total are:

Distribution of applied and experimental development expenditures ($0.12 billion) with respect to national missions or goals:

The above breakdowns are for FY 1971, but they are also valid for FY 1966–70 within a few percentage points, which indicates a negligible shift in the relative effort of the different agencies or the general types of materials studied. Therefore, any changes in national priorities since 1965 have not resulted in a significant amount of new funding, or shifts from one agency to another.

The word “material” has many different connotations, and MSE represents disciplines that are very broad in scope. Likewise, advances made in MSE contribute widely to the betterment of almost all aspects of human life, including health, safety, and economic well-being. Thus, it is understandable that there is a whole multitude of areas within the definition of MSE where various governmental agencies either have a primary responsibility, or at least play an important role in conducting basic and applied research on materials, and in the experimental development of new and improved materials.

For example, the Department of the Interior has the prime responsibility for materials research involving the extraction and processing of minerals, ores, and fuels, and the Atomic Energy Commission is primarily responsible for research involving fissile materials and their utilization in such applications as power generation and nuclear medicine.

Because of this great diversity of materials activities within governmental laboratories, it is difficult to generalize as to any fundamental or unique policy, program, or role of these laboratories. However, in examining the many mission statements and programs of the various laboratories, it seems clear that the underlying role of the vast majority, if not all, of the governmental materials research laboratories is that they are essentially problem solvers. That is, the laboratories are devoted to obtaining solutions, within a short period of time, to specific materials problems that for the most part are intimately related to an overall agency or department mission. This might be contrasted with the role of university activities, including the MRL’s which historically have been more heavily involved in basic materials research, the primary objective of which is to gain new knowledge and understanding, and which may have very little practical application, at least over the shorter term.

Although governmental materials research laboratories tend to emphasize applied research and exploratory development of new and improved materials, most seem to perform a reasonable amount of basic research in areas relevant to their missions in order to maintain or increase the necessary ability of their staffs to provide a viable base in support of their problem-solving responsibilities. The percentage of basic or exploratory research varies considerably from laboratory to laboratory, but a reasonable norm for the larger research laboratories seems to be in the range of 5–15% of total funding.

Another important point is that in carrying out its missions, it is not unusual for a government-sponsored laboratory to become the leading national center of excellence in certain specific areas. For example, the Air Force Materials Laboratory (Wright-Patterson, Ohio) has become the national leader in composite materials research, the Atomic Energy Commission’s Holifield National Laboratory is a national center of excellence in research on fissile materials, and the National Bureau of Standards has a well-recognized national center for research on polymeric materials. Hence, even though the governmental laboratories might emphasize applied R&D, they tend to have excellent fundamental research capabilities in many areas.

The following list offers a representative sample of the hundreds of government-operated R&D installations, many of which have some materials research activities. The missions of the parent agency or department is also given to help tie the mission of the laboratory to overall agency objectives. ⁹

Department of Agriculture: The Department is directed by law to acquire and diffuse useful information on agricultural subjects in the most general and comprehensive sense. The Department performs functions relating to research, education, conservation, marketing, regulatory work, agricultural adjustment, surplus disposal, and rural development.

Forest Service. The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is charged with the responsibility for promoting the conservation and best use of the nation’s forest lands, amounting to approximately a third of the total land area of the U.S. The Forest Service carries on a balanced research program to help solve the forestry problems confronting the nation. An example of a materials research laboratory in this area is the Forestry Sciences Laboratory in Athens, Georgia.

Forestry Science Laboratory. Mission: Study characteristics of southern species and their relationship to product classification and ultimate utilization; develop means of achieving more efficient use of wood in housing and construction, with emphasis on southern species.

Description of current important programs: Develop grading systems for predicting veneer yields by grade from four major species of southern pine and investigate effects of environmental factors on specific gravity of wood. Investigate environmental factors affecting wood in housing and construction, evaluate effectiveness of on-site preservative treatments, and develop new and improved wood products, systems, and designs to more efficiently utilize wood in light-frame and other construction. Conduct research on microscopic and macroscopic characteristics of wood, environmental influences, and effect on wood quality and end-use. Develop systems designs and improved methods for more efficient use of wood in light-frame and other construction, and investigate more effective processes for controlling effects of environment on wood used in construction.

Atomic Energy Commission: The purpose of the Atomic Energy Act is to provide by, national policy, that the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare and to the common defense and security, and to promote world peace, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise. The Atomic Energy Commission provides and administers programs and encourages private participation in such programs for research and development, international cooperation, production of atomic energy and special nuclear materials, and the dissemination of scientific and technical information. The Commission has the responsibility to protect the health and safety of the public, and to regulate the control and use of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials.

Sandia Laboratories. Mission: To conduct the materials R&D necessary to support stockpile management, specific development of weapons, and exploratory research and development essential to existing and future weapon needs.

Description of current important programs: The range of programs spans the conventional materials efforts in metallurgy, plastics, ceramics, ferro-electrics, thermoelectrics, and explosives, as well as composite materials. Included in this broad range is the investigation of materials behavior in extreme environments, such as radiation effects on high temperatures. In addition to the mission statement, many peripheral efforts exist which reinforce the materials R&D, e.g., dynamic properties of materials, underground testing, and simulation capabilities.

Argonne National Laboratory. Mission: Applied and basic aspects of nuclear research. Applied areas concentrate on development of liquid-metal fast-breeder reactors whose eventual commercial development will be for generation of electricity. Basic research is largely nuclear-related in areas of applied mathematics, biology and medicine, chemistry, high-energy physics, metallurgy, nuclear physics, and solid-state science.

Description of current important programs: Reactor-related programs include sodium corrosion, fuel-element performance, radiation-induced swelling and plasticity. Basic studies aim to increase understanding of materials, especially in areas of direct interest to the AEC. Areas of study include neutron scattering, radiation effects, superconductivity, mechanical properties, and the study of actinide compounds.

Department of Commerce: The mission of the Department of Commerce is to promote full development of the economic resources of the U.S. It does this through programs and actions that encourage and assist states, regions, communities, industries, and firms towards economic progress. Specific programs carried out include the collection, analysis, and dissemination of demographic, economic, business, scientific, and environmental information; the promotion of exports and increased travel to the U.S., and the provision of financial and technical assistance to regions and communities with lagging economies.

National Bureau of Standards. The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) is a principal focal point in the federal government for assuring maximum application of the physical and engineering sciences to the advancement of technology in industry and commerce. To this end, NBS conducts research and provides central national services in four broad program areas. These are (a) basic measurements and standards, (b) materials measurements and standards, (c) technological measurements and standards, and (d) transfer of technology. The Institute for Materials Research is a principal focus for NBS materials work. Its mission includes: furnishing certified Standard Reference Materials for the calibration of measuring instruments, and test methods, quality control, and research; developing new and improved methods for measuring the properties of materials; generating and evaluating scientific and engineering data on well-characterized materials; relating the physical and chemical properties of materials to their behavior and their interaction with their environments; providing advisory, consulting, research, and technical services to other governmental agencies in support of their statutory responsibilities.

Department of Defense: The Department of Defense was created as a part of a comprehensive program designed to provide for the future security of the U.S. through the establishment of integrated procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the government relating to the national security.

Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) is a separately organized research and development agency of the Department of Defense under the direction and supervision of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. It is responsible for basic and applied research and development for such advanced projects as the Director of Defense Research and Engineering assigns. The Agency utilizes the services of the military departments, other governmental agencies, private, industrial, and public entities, individuals, and educational or research institutions to perform its projects.

Department of the Army. Electronic Research and Development Laboratories; Electronic Components Department; Electronic Parts and Materials Division; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey.

Mission: The Electronic Components Department is responsible for that part of the USAELRD mission devoted to development of materials, electronic and nonelectronic components, and component assemblies. This responsibility encompasses applied R&D on materials, electron tube and solid-state devices, frequency-control and selective devices, and power sources; and also in the general category of electronic and nonelectric components, component modules, specialized packaging of component assemblies, close cooperation with the Institute of Exploratory Research, and accomplishment of such exploratory research tasks that may be assigned.

Description of current important programs: Provision of new electronic materials such as magnetic, dielectric, ferroelectric, insulating, and conducting materials to achieve new electronic parts or multifunctional circuit devices, such as low-frequency circulators, phase shifters, antenna arrays, piezoelectric elements, capacitors, etc.

Department of the Navy. Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

Mission: To conduct a broad program of scientific research and development in the physical sciences and related fields directed toward new and improved materials, equipment, techniques, and systems for the Navy.

Description of current important programs: Surface chemistry, lubricants, fuels, polymers, elastomeric materials, coatings, composites, fire-extinguishment and control, dielectrics, corrosion, radiation damage, physical metallurgy (fracture mechanics, fatigue, metal physics, welding fundamentals, refractory metals).

Department of the Air Force. Air Force Materials Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Mission: To plan, formulate, present, and execute the AFSC exploratory and advanced development programs in the areas of materials sciences, metals and ceramics, nonmetallic materials, materials composites, materials analysis, manufacturing technology, and materials applications; to conduct in-house research to maintain a high level of technical competence; to act as AFSC focal point for information in the assigned technical areas; to execute assigned projects for and closely with the Army, Navy, NASA, ARPA, AEC, and other governmental agencies; to support other AFSC programs and insure the rapid application of research and technology to advanced systems.

Description of current important programs: Materials and techniques for A/C structural integrity and reliability. Materials and techniques for AF weapons survivability and hardening. Tactical and limited warfare materials and technology support. Manufacturing technology of new materials for systems applications. Advanced composites, metals and alloys for airframe and propulsion structure.

Department of the Interior: In formulating and administering programs for the management, conservation, and development of natural resources, the Department pursues the following objectives: assurance of adequate resource development in order to meet the requirements of national security and an expanding national economy; the maintenance of production capacity for future generations; the promotion of equitable distribution of benefits from nationally owned resources; the discouragement of wasteful exploitation; the maximum use of recreational areas; and the orderly incorporation into our national life by creating conditions which will advance their social and economic adjustment.

U.S. Bureau of Mines. Albany Metallurgy Research Center.

Mission: To conduct fundamental and applied studies on long-range problems which are not commercially attractive to private industry, and short-term problems important to maintaining an adequate and sufficient supply of mineral materials at the lowest cost consistent with maintaining the national security, healthful working conditions, and preservation of the environment.

Description of current important programs: R&D programs are conducted in benefication and metallurgy to assure adequate supplies of mineral materials and to develop ways and means of utilizing or economically recycling mineral wastes. Program elements are centered about extractive metallurgy, chemical processing, materials science, metals processing, and thermodynamics.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: In carrying out the policy of Congress that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind, the principal statutory functions of NASA are: (1) to conduct research for the solution of problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere, and develop, construct, test, and operate aeronautical and space vehicles; (2) to conduct activities required for the exploration of space with manned and unmanned vehicles; (3) to arrange for the most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the U.S. with other nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities for peaceful purposes; (4) to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning NASA’s activities and their results.

NASA—Ames Research Center. Chemical Research Projects Office.

Mission: To identify the chemical and materials research and technology required for solutions to problems related to the aeronautics and space efforts of the Agency and other problems of national concern which could be solved by the application of space material technology. To conduct both basic and applied interdisciplinary R&D on chemical problems, mainly in areas of macromolecular science and fire research in order to solve these problems. To provide liaison with engineering community and effective transfer of research achievements and technology to other agencies and industry.

Lewis Research Center. There are several major objectives embodied in the materials science and engineering programs at NASA-LeRC. These are (1) to extend the capability of materials and processing technology so that advanced materials can be effectively exploited, particularly in aerospace, but also in some nonaerospace applications; (2) to obtain a better understanding of the failure and fracture mechanisms involved in the application of advanced materials to aerospace structures and propulsion systems; and (3) to develop methods for predicting in advance of service the life of aerospace structural components subjected to complex patterns of temperatures and loads as a function of time.

To achieve these objectives, research is under way to improve the capability of a number of alloy systems, including titanium, iron, nickel, cobalt, and chromium-base alloys, as well as refractory compounds which have potential for ultrahigh-temperature applications. Approaches being taken include alloying, dispersion strengthening, prealloyed-powder technology, thermomechanical processing, and directional solidification. Specific areas of corrosion associated with aeronautics applications, such as hot-salt stress corrosion of titanium alloys and oxidation and sulfidation of superalloys, are under investigation. Similarly liquid-metal corrosion, which is pertinent to space power applications, is under investigation. The development of advanced fiber and laminate composite materials (both polymer matrix and metal matrix) with superior properties is oriented toward the use of these materials in gas turbine engines and space-oriented applications such as the Space Shuttle.

To extend existing life-prediction techniques, research is under way to develop new methods for determining stress and strain distributions in the vicinity of flaws or cracks. Various approaches are being examined for predicting the time to initiation of the first detectable crack as a result of mechanical and thermal fatigue and to predict the propagation rate of these cracks. Standard fracture-test methods are being developed to properly characterize the fracture behavior of materials.

Of course, implicit in each research area are basic studies designed to contribute to the understanding of fundamental material behavior.

National Science Foundation: The fundamental purpose of the National Science Foundation is to strengthen research and education in the sciences in the U.S. Among the activities of the Foundation are the awarding of grants and contracts, primarily to universities and other nonprofit institutions, in support of scientific research. These include the support of many laboratories engaged in various aspects of materials research. (See later discussion of NSF activities.)

The primary characteristic of American science support is that it is pluralistic and diffuse. There is only one agency (NSF) with an overall mandate to support science and technology generally; all the others, with the lion’s share of the budget, support an agency mission. The picture is thus inherently complex, and any attempt to evaluate it fairly would have to ask detailed questions not only about the health of the extramural materials apparatus, but also about how well the various agencies have been served by the science and technology thus generated. COSMAT was not structured to carry out such an assignment in detail, so we shall restrict attention to a few generalizations, and make a few rough estimates about how the machinery has worked in the past and how it may be expected to respond to the new future challenges.

Research-Mission Coupling Structure: The working structures of the various agencies spread over a considerable spectrum as outlined below, depending upon how closely coupled the research output is to the agency mission, and what type of office does the funding.

Research Funded Under a System Contract. Some applied materials research (primarily industrial) is carried out under the terms of the prime contract for the development of a particular system. For example, a substantial amount of materials work in the DoD is performed as an integral part of missile nose-cone development, and is carried out in the various industrial laboratories charged with the development of that system.

Governmental Laboratory Extramural Programs. Some governmental laboratories have extramural budgets for work in direct support of the laboratory programs. These activities are conceived as actual extensions of in-house laboratory projects, and have multiplying effects on the technical staff. In the hands of groups like the Air Force Materials Laboratory management, such arrangements serve important functions. For example, it is through such support formats that the Air Force oversees such industrial developments as its titanium program and its composite-materials development program.

Mission-Related Research Offices. A further point on the scale corresponds to offices whose sole function is the funding of mission-related research. A subcategory contains offices which fund both in-house and extramural research. The AEC and NASA afford such examples, since each has an office which is responsible for the entire in-house and extramural agency budget in materials. In such cases, research strategy-making is centralized, and the extramural activities are subject to considerable feedback from the in-house laboratory people. ONR is also, at least partially, an example of this type of office, since NRL is also funded through ONR, although there is at least partial separation from the extramural program, in that different sections of ONR are responsible for NRL and for the extramural programs.

The second subcategory pertains to offices whose sole or primary purpose is extramural research. The dividing line is of course not sharp, because offices such as ARPA actually sponsor in-house DoD and other governmental work on a selective basis, and in most cases use monitors from other Defense Department offices such as the Army Research Office to monitor the extramural research contracts.

In all cases of offices which carry on extramural research in support of an agency mission, much attention is given to feedback mechanisms whereby the agency in-house laboratory and project personnel interact with (and on) the extramural program. An excellent analysis of this interaction has recently been carried out in a series of case studies for certain early ONR operations. ¹⁰ As detailed in the study, ONR early developed liaison with the related technical branches of the Navy, e.g., the Bureau of Aeronautics and the Bureau of Ordnance, etc., and its program goals and strategies were tailored with the technical needs of these offices as well as the overall Navy in mind. These interactions and concerns are features of each of the offices of this type.

National Science Foundation. The final point in the spectrum is occupied by NSF, which traditionally has focused primarily on the needs of the university science community rather than on specific technical output in terms of a particular mission. Some striking changes have very recently occurred in the mandate and goals of the NSF, but it is too early to tell what impact these will have in the long run. In recent years, NSF has been forced to act excessively as a flywheel to the rest of the supporting agencies; in a number of instances, important projects have been terminated within the mission agencies, and NSF has absorbed them. In the materials area, the ARPA Interdisciplinary Laboratories and the National Magnet Laboratory are examples.

The previous paragraphs illustrate the extreme variability in the agency structure of groups currently supporting materials research in this country. Since the support structure is mainly mission-based, a variety of formal and ad hoc committees and groups have grown up to coordinate the whole picture. These committees usually have little policy responsibility, but they do serve a number of information-sharing functions, and they sometimes carry out studies and make important recommendations on general policy on materials matters to the Federal Council, the Office of Science and Technology, as well as within the various agencies. The information-sharing is by no means a trivial activity because by means of it the university small-scale principal-investigator activities are coordinated, and a finely-tuned balance can, in principle, be achieved on desirable levels of support for individual groups. Another important result is that when a desirable activity is phased out of one agency for internal reasons, the system usually responds elsewhere (as mentioned above in connection with the NSF).

Orthogonal to the research-coupling axis discussed above, another spectrum can be plotted consisting of support styles and formats. These styles again reflect a rich variation depending upon the particular goal. Several themes can be discerned:

Special Arrangements to Effect a Unique Result: Solicited Proposals from Selected Vendors. This is the method of choice when an agency is faced with a special short-term problem and there is a small potential group of contributors. It is not a popular format, except for highly applied projects.

Special-Purpose Laboratories: Examples: The National Magnet Laboratory (MIT) for the study of material properties at high-magnetic fields is a facility available nationwide to research people on petition. The AEC National Laboratories furnish unique facilities for neutron research, etc., and are also available widely to the research community. The Ames Laboratory is supported by AEC for the specialized study of rare earths. The Materials Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University specializes in new materials and crystal growth.

“Named” Programs: The purpose in this case is normally to stimulate new activity in a relatively narrow field of special importance.

NSF Science Development Program. The purpose of this presently terminating program is to create new excellence at the second-tier universities. There are no special requirements in terms of fields to be pursued; rather, excellence is sought on its own grounds.

ARPA Coupling Programs. These are industry-university cooperative programs aimed at fields of special importance.

AROD Military Themes. Unsolicited proposals on “ONR format” (see below), but aimed at specific fields deemed of special Army significance.

NSF Science Fellowships, Traineeships, etc.

Directed Short-Term Research (often system-related): Under programs with a definite timetable and specified product, short-term research programs are often funded to resolve some aspect of the project. The titanium research projects supported under the Air Force titanium development program are examples. A number of ARPA programs such as that on nondestructive testing are also examples.

Individual Investigator on ONR Format: In this familiar technique, unsolicited proposals are received over a wide, but mission-biased, field. Those proposals within the mission of the office are then judged on their scientific merit, often by outside panels of experts. Since this format has the effect of rewarding only the best ideas on an open nationally competitive basis, it has traditionally been the most effective way to stimulate creative performance at the frontiers by the academic science establishment. It has proved especially effective in universities already operating under some kind of umbrella institutional funding, and is not seen as an alternative to, or in competition with, such institutional funding. The impact on the agency mission is in varying degrees long-term and indirect. Scientific matters aside, clearly an effect of great value is the investment the agency is able to make in assuring itself of a cadre of technically trained people with expertise in relevant technical areas. The Defense Department without its aerospace engineering talent in the defense industry would clearly be in deep trouble. Indeed, now after 25 years of university research support, the manpower implications of what the federal government does have become drastically apparent.

The Interdisciplinary Laboratories: The IDL format is a significant one in the field of materials. Inasmuch as a separate and more detailed evaluation is given in the following university section, it will be described only briefly here. The history of the initiation of the IDL began in the Sputnik era when the nation was rapidly expanding its science base. A number of factors which made the field of materials particularly ripe for takeoff included: (a) recognition of the generality of materials requirements in each of the high-technology agencies—DoD, NASA, and AEC; (b) realization that a synthesis was required in the field itself between its subelements of solid-state physics, metallurgy, chemistry, and electrical engineering; (c) the need for augmentation of the individual investigator format. (In the late 1950’s, for example, the individual investigator system required new capitalization in the form of additional laboratory space and major facilities unavailable under that format.)

The program was spawned in three agencies—ARPA, AEC, and NASA—with slight variations in each, through the new Coordinating Committee for Materials Research and Development (CCMRD) set up as an arm of the Federal Council of Science and Technology. Currently the ARPA IDL program has been transferred to NSF, and the laboratories are called Materials Research Laboratories.

The IDL structure operates in parallel with other agency funding through the Principal Investigator grant system. Only a fraction (one-quarter to one-half) of the total support-costs of research by the IDL faculty are met by the IDL contract, and these are concentrated in supplying facility backups. laboratory equipment, technician support, and seed money for new starts. It is useful for a number of reasons to have outside relatively unbiased evaluations of individual research performance, and for the research ideas of the group to compete nationally rather than only locally for grant recognition. While there is considerable variance in the materials community regarding the effectiveness of the IDL program, it is generally accepted that in relation to its initial goals, the program has been largely successful. This question is discussed further in the university section.

Future Directions in Modes of Research Support: These comments have demonstrated a number of features of the present governmental research structure: (a) Aside from the general tightening of funds for the physical sciences, which has affected the field of materials as much as any other, the field of materials is generally in excellent shape. (b) Materials are deeply enmeshed within the governmental apparatus in a microscopic sense; the field has been characterized by much creative experimentation in management format to elicit a variety of mission goals, and it has been very successful in interacting with and contributing to the high technologies emphasized in the past. (c) Coordination between the federal agencies is reasonably good in terms of information sharing

From the management point-of-view, the government now faces a number of new challenges relative to materials. The nation possesses in the materials community an effective and tested component of technology. However, for the most part, the new urban-related technologies are developing in areas outside the traditional activities of materials specialists. A major question of strategy would then be to strive for a reassessment of goals by the materials community, and an examination of how the successful techniques and substantial talents of materials specialists can be properly utilized in these new directions. If the urban-related agencies were similar to the aerospace agencies, and if the period were still one of science and technology budgetary growth, the budgets of the new agencies could be expanded in familiar ways and traditional processes relied upon to bring about the desired results. However, a crucial point is that the total materials budget is unlikely to expand substantially in the absence of overall budget changes, so that the problem becomes one of reallocation of resources and talents.

This problem is a fundamental issue for all governmental agencies. Those presently possessing the major portions of the materials budget also possess the major materials management and technical abilities. Dismantling the present structure to build anew elsewhere will not only be painful, but more importantly will be wasteful and require many years to effect. Also, such changes carry the risk that a presently successful enterprise might not retain its vitality.

A recommended approach to this problem is to start with the present establishment, try to discover ways in which it can contribute to the newer areas through modifications, and then consider what new structures and formats are necessary. Specific recommendations are:

The distribution of federal funds shown earlier indicates that defense, nuclear energy, and space technology have been the missions receiving the heaviest federal funds over the last few years. Additional and more “domestic” goals are emerging for the coming decade. Several of these will require a significant input from MSE and some suggestions on how to get the existing MSE community involved in this work were given at the close of the preceding section. The following describes briefly several of the social concerns in question:

The control of air pollution will often require new materials efforts. For example, work on the reduction of automobile emissions to meet projected standards requires high-temperature catalysts, combustion chambers, sensing and control units that can be produced reliably in great numbers.

Alternates to the internal combustion engine for automotive power all involve critical materials requirements. High-energy-density electric batteries are one of the more promising systems, but federal action and probably federal funding are required before they will be developed to the demonstration stage.

Another class of atmospheric-pollution problems centers around industrial combustion processes: for example, SO₂ in base-metal smelting operations or fossil-fuel-burning power plants. NO₂ presents a related problem. Satisfactory means of reducing or eliminating these emissions have yet to be found.

Governmental regulation is forcing industry to install, and sometimes develop, new equipment to alleviate these emission problems. However, in the past there has been little economic incentive to develop such processes, and so the technological base needed to develop improved processes is often lacking. As the environmental demands become more stringent, “off the shelf” items or their minor improvements will not be adequate, and new processes will be needed. An expanded, more coherent federal program aimed at providing the base technology for new emission control would be of substantial benefit.

The goals of continued economic prosperity under the free enterprise system coupled with increased environmental concern and a diminishing supply of high-grade mineral resources has brought about a major change in previously accepted concepts. Escalating demands for quality products, the growing tendency to conserve mineral reserves, the higher costs associated with production, and the realization that recycling and reclamation of products are possible, all have led to this reassessment. Both the federal government and MSE have major roles to play in fostering the development of these concepts.

The government’s role in this new concept lies in granting economic incentives to stimulate commercial recycling enterprises. This could include a revision of the tax structure to allow a resource-recovery deduction; rapid plant and equipment decpreciation; subsidized trash and scrap collection; government-financed research; preferential transportation policies and rates; financial guarantees or loans; and material purchase guarantees.

The governmental research role could be to support pioneer innovations, while private enterprise could be responsible for its commercial adaptation. This would stimulate domestic industry and would provide the needed supply of materials at reasonable costs. All research—scientific, engineering, and economic—has to be directed to the entire industrial system of material production and use. The system includes primary and secondary production together with such elements as distribution, manufacture, use, disposal, and scrap collection. Subsystems exist within the system. For example, the recycling of lead and antimony used in automobile and industrial batteries is a fairly well-defined separate industrial system; platinum, gold, and silver tend to be recycled in closed systems for particular uses, while recycling of urban refuse is less organized and inherently more difficult to systematize.

Other subsystems that need more research and analysis include the recycling of the materials from automobiles, appliance components, and used structural shapes. The government, since it is probably the only agency having the capability to develop the statistical information needed, has an important role in this area, especially in view of its obligation to provide for the general welfare of the people who are the chief beneficiaries of such advances.

The Presidential Message to the Congress on June 4, 1971, included the following: “For most of our history, a plentiful supply of energy is something the American people have taken very much for granted. In the past twenty years alone, we have been able to double our consumption of energy without exhausting the supply. But the assumption that sufficient energy will always be readily available has been brought sharply into question within the last year. The brownouts that have affected some areas of our country, the possible shortages of fuel that were threatened last fall, the sharp increases in certain fuel prices, and our growing awareness of the environmental consequences of energy production have all demonstrated that we cannot take our energy supply for granted any longer.

“A sufficient supply of clean energy is essential if we are to sustain healthy economic growth and improve the quality of our national life. I am therefore announcing today a broad range of actions to ensure an adequate supply of clean energy for the years ahead. Private industry, of course, will still play a major role in providing our energy, but government can do a great deal to help in meeting this challenge.

“My program includes the following elements:

“To Facilitate Research and Development for Clean Energy:

“—A commitment to complete the successful demonstration of the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor by 1980.

“—More than twice as much federal support for sulfur oxide control demonstration projects in Fiscal Year 1972.

“—An expanded program to convert coal into a clean gaseous fuel.

“—Support for a variety of other energy research projects in fields such as fusion power, magnetohydrodynamic power cycles, and underground electric transmission.”

Energy-conversion systems (nuclear reactors, turbines, generators, etc.) invariably require that materials perform in new and demanding environments. Often materials problems limit the efficiency and performance of the unit. Consequently, materials R&D will play an essential role in the development of this program, and will be carried out in both industrial and governmental laboratories.

If one focuses primarily on electrical energy, the R&D effort has traditionally been supplied by equipment suppliers and the federal government. Recently the U.S. utilities have considered playing a significantly more active role than they have in the past. A recent report by the Electric Research Council lays out a broad program for utilities, manufacturers, and government. ¹¹ The development of better, more reliable materials is an important theme in this report. A clear call is made for additional private, as well as federal, funding to support the work.

Many materials are used in the construction of buildings; these cover the whole spectrum of classes of materials, from low-technology materials, such as wood and concrete, to more sophisticated high-technology materials, such as plastics and composites. To identify materials needs and problems associated with buildings and construction technology, the following list provides a representative sampling of specific problems (prepared by experts in the National Bureau of Standards’ Building Research Division) of primary importance in this area. These are not in order of priority.

Roofing Materials: There have been no recent innovations in this area. This may be partly due to the fact that no performance criteria or standards currently exist for roofing materials. This problem could be further complicated in the future, as there is a shortage of asphalt. It is estimated that 8×10⁹ square feet of roofing material is used per year. Not enough use has been made of plastics or other substitutes.

Plumbing Materials: Plastics are potential replacements for metals. However, here again we need performance criteria and standards for plumbing systems. Additional research is required in the area of plastic pipes and tubings. This problem in the plumbing area has been a subject for comment and criticism by at least one Congressional Committee.

Joining Problems—Adhesives: Here much work is lacking in surface science and the science of adhesion. Adhesive manufacturers will not guarantee their products because not enough is known about the adhesive mechanisms. Current adhesives last only about four years as opposed to the desired 40 years.

Sealants: These are used to provide more-or-less permanent joints between brick walls and ceilings or between marble slabs. Their main purpose is to exclude water and air. They require no structural properties, in contrast to adhesives, which bind one surface to another and must be capable of transmitting stress and strain. Better sealants are needed with greater imperviousness.

Acoustic Materials: Generally speaking, materials with good acoustic absorption do not have good moisture-absorption properties and also present a potential hazard with respect to fire safety. The best acoustic materials are not satisfactory, and further R&D work in this area is necessary.

Solar-Energy and Coating Materials: New materials are required for better solar-energy absorption, and coating transmission and reflectance properties. Current coating materials do not maintain these critical properties over a sufficiently long period of time.

Gasket Problems: This is somewhat related to the sealant problem. However, the gasket is usually coupled into a moving fixture such as a sliding door and may be subject to periodic compression and expansion. The need is for new rubberlike materials with improved resiliency and durability.

Moisture Effects: Moisture is a primary cause of deterioration in almost all classes of building materials, from concrete to metals. We need better materials that will resist the effects of moisture. Degradation of underground insulating materials due to moisture is a particularly serious problem. The corrosion of metals is another serious problem, particularly with respect to the corrosion of air-conditioning cooling towers.