National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 8

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Executive Summary This report updates and extends a 1999 study of trends fense R&D, funded mostly by the Department of Defense in federal research funding commissioned by the National (DOD) but also by the Department of Energy (DOE), was Academies’ Board on Science, Technology, and Economic most affected by the cuts. The purpose of the STEP Policy (STEP).1 Analysis of more recent data supports that Board’s 1999 study was to see if, in fact, longer range study’s principal conclusion that a substantial shift has research in disciplines that received most of their federal been occurring in the composition of the federal research funding from DOD and other agencies with reduced R&D portfolio. This shift in funding is affecting both the alloca- budgets was being cut accordingly. The study analyzed tion of resources by research field and the supply of human data on actual federal obligations for basic and applied resources. In particular, there has been a significant reduc- research from FY 1990 through FY 1997 (the last year for tion in federal funding for research in certain of the physi- which data were available), especially trends after 1993 cal science and engineering fields. These include fields (the last year of real growth in federal research budgets whose earlier advances contributed to the surge in produc- until 1998).4 tivity and economic growth of the late 1990s2 and fields The study showed that in 1997, although the level of that underlie progress in energy production and conserva- federal research spending was nearly the same as it had tion, pollution abatement, medical diagnosis and treatment, been in 1993, a number of agencies were spending less on and other national priorities. research than they had in 1993, including DOD (–27.5 percent), Department of the Interior (–13.3 percent), Department of Agriculture (–6.2 percent), and DOE (–5.6 BACKGROUND percent).5 Meanwhile, the research budget of the National In the early 1990s shifting national priorities stemming Institutes of Health (NIH) had increased by 11 percent. from the end of the Cold War and a political consensus to The cuts disproportionately affected most fields in the eliminate the federal budget deficit began to reduce federal physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and geology), funding of research and development in real terms.3 De- engineering (chemical, civil, electrical, and mechanical) and mathematics, because those fields received most of 1Michael McGeary and Stephen A. Merrill. 1999. “Recent Trends in their support from agencies with reduced research funding Federal Spending on Scientific and Engineering Research: Impacts on and only a few were able to obtain increased support from Research Fields and Graduate Training,” Appendix A in National other agencies. Nevertheless, the funding of particular Research Council, Securing America’s Industrial Strength. Washington, fields did not necessarily mirror the budgets of their D.C.: National Academy Press. 2Dale Jorgenson, “Information Technology and the U.S. Economy,” American Economic Review 91(1):1-32, 2001 and Kevin J. Stiroh, 4Obligations are commitments to spend money, regardless of when the “Information Technology and the U.S. Productivity Revival: What Do the funds were appropriated and of whether actual payment is made later, for Industry Data Say?” Staff Report, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, example, under multiyear contracts. The data on federal obligations are no. 95, 2001. Available online at: http://www.ny.frb.org/rmaghome/ based on the federal fiscal year that begins October 1 each year. Data on staff_rp/2001/2001.html expenditures by other sponsors of research are for calendar years. 3Unless otherwise specified, all funding numbers in this report have 5Michael McGeary and Stephen A. Merrill. 1999. “Recent Trends in been converted to constant (1999) dollars using GDP deflators in Office Federal Spending on Scientific and Engineering Research: Impacts on of Management and Budget. 2001. Historical Tables, Budget of the Research Fields and Graduate Training,” Appendix A, Table A-1 in United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 10.1, Washington, National Research Council, Securing America’s Industrial Strength. D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1

2 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION principal supporting agencies. Some of these fields were 46 percent of federal funding for research, compared with subject to reductions in support by agencies with growing 40 percent in 1993. During the same period, physical budgets. Based on these findings, the Board expressed its science and engineering funding went from 37 to 31 concern about the long-term implications of reduced percent of the research portfolio. federal investment in fields important to such industries as – Whereas 12 of the 22 fields examined had suffered electronics, software, networking, and materials processing a real loss of support in the mid-1990s (four by 20 and to advances in the life sciences. percent or more), by FY 1999 the number of fields with reduced support was seven. However, five of these—physics, geological sciences, and chemical, KEY FINDINGS electrical, and mechanical engineering—were down The following findings form support the conclusions 20 percent or more from 1993.6 and recommendations of this study, based on trends – The fields of chemical and mechanical engineering through 1999: and geological sciences had less funding in 1999 than in 1997. Funding of some fields—including • Federal research funding in the aggregate turned a electrical engineering and physics—improved corner in FY 1998 after 5 years of stagnation. Total expen- somewhat from 1997 to 1999 but not enough to ditures were up 4.5 percent in FY 1998 over their level in raise them back up to their 1993 levels. 1993. A year later, in FY 1999, they were up 11.7 percent – Other fields that failed to increase or had less over 1993. FY 2000 and FY 2001 saw continued growth in funding after 1997 included astronomy, chemistry, budget authority for research. These increases are ac- and atmospheric sciences. counted for primarily by NIH. Indeed, increases in NIH – One field that had increased funding in the mid- appropriations kept federal research funding from falling 1990s, materials engineering, experienced declining even lower in the mid-1990s and have dominated more support at the end of the decade. Its funding was recent growth in overall research funding (see Figure ES- 14.0 percent larger in 1997 than in 1993, but that 1). Moreover, NIH is slated by the current administration margin fell to 3.0 percent in 1998 and 1.5 percent in for substantial increases in the next several years while 1999. most other agencies would receive flat or reduced funding – The fields whose support was up in 1997 and has for research. continued to increase include aeronautical, astro- • Although federal research funding began to increase nautical, civil, and other engineering;7 biological after 1997, the new composition of federal support re- and medical sciences; computer sciences; and mained relatively unchanged. In 1999, the life sciences had oceanography. – Fields that, like overall research expenditures, turned a corner were environmental biology, agri- 40 cultural sciences, mathematics, social sciences, and psychology. Their funding, which was less in 1997 35 than in 1993, exceeded the 1993 level by 1999 (see Figure ES-2). 30 • More recent actions on federal budgets for research, including the first installments in doubling of the NIH NIH budget over the 5 years ending in FY 2003, will increase Billions of 1999 dollars 25 20 Others 6From time to time, agencies responding to the NSF survey of federal USDA 15 funds for research and development change their procedures for classify- NSF ing funding by field of research. In 1996, for example, NSF changed its DOE classification of engineering and the environmental sciences research 10 activities so that its support of mechanical engineering appeared to be NASA much less and its funding of oceanography much greater. In this case, if 5 NSF did not actually change what it was funding, the drop in overall federal funding of mechanical engineering was somewhat less than DOD reported, and the apparent increase in oceanography may not be real. 0 Most fine fields were not affected by such changes during the 1993-1999 1993 1999 period, and the broad trends documented in this report—expansion of life Fiscal year sciences funding relative to funding of the physical sciences and engi- neering—are not affected. FIGURE ES-1 Federal funding of research, by agency, FY 1993 7“Other engineering” includes agricultural, bioengineering, biomedical, and FY 1999 (constant dollars). industrial and management, nuclear, ocean, and systems engineering.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 100 All performers Universities & Colleges 80 60 Mechanical engineering Chemical engineering Electrical engineering Geological sciences 40 Chemistry Percent change 20 Physics 0 Atmospheric sciences Oceanography Astronomy Computer science Environmental biology Metallurgy/materials engineering Biological sciences Civil engineering Social sciences Other engineering Aeronautical engineering Agricultural sciences Astronautical engineering Medical sciences Psychology –20 Mathematics –40 –60 –80 FIGURE ES-2 Changes in federal research obligations for all performers and university/college performers, FY 1993–FY 1999 (constant dollars). the current divergence between the life sciences and other protect basic and university research relative to applied fields unless other fields receive substantially larger in- research and other performers. creases than proposed. • Although federal funding of research assistant posi- • The decline in the support of many of the physical tions through research grants and contracts is but one science and engineering fields is partly attributable to the factor among many in determining the number of graduate fact that the budgets of their principal sponsoring agencies students in training and the number of Ph.D.’s produced in [e.g., DOD, DOE, and the National Aeronautics and Space a field, graduate enrollments and Ph.D. production were Administration (NASA)] did not fare as well as the NIH generally down in fields that had less federal funding in budget and partly to the fact that the agencies with grow- 1999 than in 1993. Over the next few years, these declines ing budgets, especially NIH and NSF, did not increase will contribute to an ongoing reduction in the supply of their support of those fields and in some cases reduced it. new talent for positions in governmental/nonprofit organi- At the same time, some fields—e.g., computer sciences, zations, industry, academia, and other employment sectors oceanography, and aeronautical engineering—experienced (see Figure ES-3). substantial growth even though their largest 1993 funders • Although the data are much more limited, it appears were agencies with shrinking budgets—e.g., DOD and that states and philanthropies have shared the research NASA. These fields did so by maintaining their level of priorities of the federal government in the last decade. For funding from agencies with declining budgets and by both states and foundations, biomedical research consumes picking up additional support from other agencies. a majority of research funding and has grown at a faster • The patterns in federal funding of basic research and rate than support of other scientific and engineering fields. research performed at universities are similar to that for • Data on the composition of industry-funded research overall funding of research but somewhat more favorable, are classified by sector rather than by field and thus are not suggesting that by the late 1990s agencies were tending to directly comparable to those on federal expenditures. The

4 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION Federal 60 Nonfederal Metallurgy and Materials enginering 50 Electrical engineering 40 Mechanical engineering Aerospace engineering Mathematical sciences Chemical engineering Atmospheric sciences Agricultural sciences 30 Biological sciences Ocean sciences Percent change Civil engineering Social sciences Geosciences 20 Astronomy Chemistry Physics 10 0 Computer sciences Health fields Psychology –10 –20 Field –30 FIGURE ES-3 Percent change in full-time graduate enrollment, by field and primary source of support, 1993–1999. data show that corporations’ spending on research has used by the administration in developing its budget re- been increasing but is concentrated in a few sectors such as quest. the pharmaceutical industry and the information technol- ogy sector. Electronic components was one industry in CONCLUSIONS which research investment increased as federal support of the most closely related research field, electrical engineer- The recent shift in composition of the federal research ing, declined over the decade. Nevertheless, except for a portfolio is significant. Although nonfederal entities few industries such as pharmaceuticals, only a small increased their share of national funding for R&D from 60 fraction (less than 4 percent in computers and semiconduc- to 74 percent between 1990 and 2000, federal funding still tors, for example) of all corporate research and develop- supports a substantial component, 27 percent, of the ment is basic research. Moreover, private research invest- nation’s total research expenditures, 49 percent of basic ment is quite volatile, sometimes subject to wide research spending. Reductions in federal funding of a field fluctuation from year to year with or independent of the of 20 percent or more have a substantial impact unless business cycle. there are compensating increases in funding from non- • The shifts in federal funding of fields were partly the federal sources, which does not appear to be the case in the result of congressional (e.g., biomedical research) and last few years. Generally speaking, moreover, federal presidential priorities (e.g., high-performance computing funding for research has a longer time horizon and can be research and development); but the funding reductions more stable than investments from other sources. were substantially the product of decentralized decision The funding trends leading to shifts in the federal making by officials in various departments, agencies, and research portfolio will continue under the admini- congressional committees, adjusting resources to agency stration’s budget plan. The administration’s request for mission needs in a constrained budget environment. Im- NIH for FY 2002 would increase its budget authority for pacts on the overall composition of the federal research research by 12.9 percent over the 2001 level in constant portfolio were not considered until FY 2000, when the dollars. All other non-defense research would be reduced administration and Congress began to discuss the balance by 1.5 percent. There is also provision for an increase in of funding among fields, and the FY 2001 budget cycle, DOD’s budget authority for research but its allocation when for the first time balance became an explicit criterion awaits the results of the administration’s strategic review.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 There is little indication, based on their portfolios from viewpoint of those who support expanded funding of 1993 to 1999, that NIH would allocate substantial funds to biomedical or computer science research. Advances in fields outside of the biological and medical sciences or that both of the latter fields will be dependent on progress in a DOD would rebuild funding for fields the department broad range of fields of fundamental research, including previously cut or increased less. NSF, with the broadest physics, chemistry, electrical engineering, and chemical research portfolio, has tended to increase its support of engineering, all fields with less funding at the end of the fields whose funding from other sources is growing and 1990s than they received earlier in the decade. reduce support of some fields whose support is declining Although it may be wise policy to reduce the linkage elsewhere. In any case, its research budget is small com- between research funding and training support,10 re- pared with those of DOD and NIH. search allocation decisions should take into account the There are compelling reasons for the federal govern- need for trained people in a field. Curtailing research in a ment to invest across the range of scientific and engi- field may constrict the supply of trained people with neering disciplines.8 Increasingly, the most important advanced technical degrees (not only Ph.D.’s) who are problems in both the life and physical sciences and engi- capable of applying and exploiting research advances in a neering require collaboration across disciplines. Examples variety of settings including but not limited to the labora- include genomics and bioinformatics, which rely on math- tory. Increasingly, there is a premium on scientific and ematics and computer science as much as biology for engineering training in a range of service as well as manu- progress; nanotechnology, which depends on chemistry facturing industries. The effect of cutting research is both and chemical engineering, physics, materials science and direct, in reducing the number of research assistant posi- technology, and electrical engineering; and understanding tions, and indirect, in signaling to prospective graduate of climate change, which relies on collaboration among students that some fields offer poor career opportunities. oceanographers, atmospheric chemists, geologists and The current system for allocating research funding geophysicists, paleontologists, and computer scientists. does not necessarily ensure that national priorities are Furthermore, research, by its nature, is highly uncertain. taken into account. In the highly decentralized U.S. It is not possible to know when and where breakthroughs system of support for science and engineering, most will occur, what practical applications they may have, and research funding is tied to the missions of federal agencies when those applications may pay off. Important advances rather than national needs more broadly conceived, such as in one field sometimes come from apparently unrelated technological innovation and economic growth. If a mis- work in another field. For example, who knew in 1945 that sion changes—for example, defense strategy in the post- the discovery of nuclear magnetic resonance in condensed Cold War world—support of certain fields of research may matter by basic research physicists would lead to the decline for reasons that are entirely defensible in terms of development of MRI technology 30 years later? 9 Increas- the affected agency’s priorities but not necessarily defen- ing interdisciplinarity and uncertainty about where ad- sible in terms of the research opportunities in and produc- vances will take place and if or when they will be commer- tivity of those fields and their potential contributions to cially successful argue for the prudence of investing in a national goals. broad portfolio of research activities. The evidence of changing agency priorities and portfo- There is cause for concern about the allocation of lios is actually encouraging. In a rapidly changing world, it funding among fields in the federal research portfolio, in would be disturbing if spending patterns were static. But particular with respect to most of the physical sciences there is no process for reviewing systematically the effects and engineering whose funding, in contrast with the of these decentralized decisions on the health of research biomedical sciences, has with few exceptions stagnated or fields and the supply of human resources with reference to declined. The current level of funding in some fields may a set of national goals. It may be that funding reductions not be optimal from a national perspective or from the are entirely warranted by diminished research opportuni- ties or productivity or less need for people in those special- ties. On the other hand, funding increments may be justi- fied. Simply increasing the research funding of certain 8The rationale for a diverse portfolio is articulated in National Acad- agencies (for example, DOD, DOE, or NSF) will not emy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1993. Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: necessarily achieve the desired allocation by itself. A National Goals for a New Era. Washington, D.C.: National Academy single agency’s research budget may be comparatively Press; and National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds small and widely dispersed or the agency may continue to for Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 9National Academy of Sciences. March 2001. A Life-Saving Window on the Mind and Body: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. At: www/ 10A position taken by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and beyonddiscovery.org/beyond/BeyondDiscovery.nsf/files/PDF MRI.pdf/ Public Policy in its report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scien- $file/MRI PDF.pdf. tists and Engineers, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.

6 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION allocate any increases to its current priorities. The task decentralized system of selecting and carrying out research requires some centralized oversight, similar to the mecha- projects to see if adjustments are needed to close gaps or nisms for advancing presidential priorities that cut across reduce shortfalls that occur when policy makers make agency programs and budgets.11 decisions in a narrow framework. Improvements in data and analysis would support a better informed process of allocating federal funding for Recommendation 1. The White House Office of Science research. Current surveys are valuable and underutilized and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Man- tools for assessing the nation’s allocation of resources to agement and Budget (OMB), with assistance from the conduct of science and development of technology, but federal agencies and appropriate advisory bodies, their utility could be improved by modest changes in the should evaluate the federal research portfolio, with an surveys and in the presentation of their results. Moreover, initial focus on fields related to industrial performance there are significant gaps in information, especially on and other national priorities and a recent history of non-unversity performers of federal research and on non- declining funding. Examples are physics, electrical federal research sponsors — states, philanthropic institu- engineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, mechani- tions, and businesses at a fine level of detail. There needs cal engineering, and geological sciences. Fields with flat to be a good deal more qualitative evaluation of the output funding or only small real increases through the 1990s of research fields and the effects on outputs of changes in also merit attention. These include materials engineer- funding levels as well as more rigorous analysis of the ing, atmospheric sciences, mathematics, psychology, influences on the supply of and demand for scientists and and astronomy. The conclusions of the evaluation engineers with advanced training. should be reflected in budget allocations. Recommendation 2. Congress should conduct its own RECOMMENDATIONS evaluation of the federal research portfolio through the Based on these conclusions, the committee recommends budget, appropriations, or authorization committees. action in three areas. For the most part our recommenda- tions reaffirm previous Academy statements on the budget Recommendation 3. For the longer term, the executive allocation process for research,12 priorities for the National branch and Congress should sponsor the following Science Foundation’s statistical arm, the Division of types of studies: (1) in-depth qualitative case studies of Science Resources Studies,13 international benchmarking selected fields, taking into account not only funding of scientific performance,14 and federal support of graduate trends across federal agencies and nonfederal support- training in science and engineering.15 ers and international comparisons but also subtler differences in the foci, time horizons, and other re- search characteristics that are obscured by quantitative Evaluation and Adjustment of the Research Portfolio data; (2) studies of agency research portfolios and The U.S. system for funding and performing research decision making to understand the reasons for shifts in has many strengths and accounts in large part for the funding by field and the extent to which the health of productivity of American science and technology. In individual fields and interrelationships among fields making the following recommendations, we are not calling are taken into account; and (3) studies of methodolo- for centralization of decision making about research gies for allocating federal research funding according priorities and spending. What is needed is a mechanism or to national rather than merely departmental criteria mechanisms to monitor the aggregate results of a very and priorities. Recommendation 4. The executive branch and Con- 11National Science Board, “The Scientific Allocation of Scientific gress should institutionalize processes for conducting Resources” [Discussion Draft for Comment], March 28, 2001, p. 3. and, if necessary, acting on an integrated analysis of the 12National Research Council, Allocating Federal Funds for Science federal budget for research, by field as well as by and Technology, 1995. Op. Cit. agency, national purpose, and other perspectives. 13National Research Council, Measuring the Science and Engineering Enterprise, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000; and Industrial Research and Innovation Indicators, Washington, D.C.: Data Improvements National Academy Press, 1997. 14National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, National data systems need to be expanded and im- and Institute of Medicine, Experiments in International Benchmarking of proved to support better policy making. U.S. Research Fields, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. 15National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scien- Recommendation 5. NSF should annually report and tists and Engineers, 1995. Op. Cit. interpret data from its survey of federal R&D obliga-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 tions in a form (e.g., adjusted for inflation) and on a Analytical Improvements schedule useful to policy makers. Improvements in the The analysis presented here, a gathering of existing data data that should be given careful consideration include from various sources, is a first step that raises more ques- reporting of data on university research support by all tions than it answers. agencies that support a major share of research in certain fields [e.g., Department of Interior (DOI) in Recommendation 9. NSF and other federal agencies geological sciences and Department of Commerce funding research should support benchmarking studies (DOC) in oceanography], obtaining data by field on that compare inputs and outputs across countries and performers other than universities (e.g., in industry and sponsor other efforts to develop techniques for assess- government laboratories), evaluating and revising the ing the productivity of various fields of research. field classification, and making the field classification and research typology uniform across surveys (e.g., the Recommendation 10. NSF should continue and expand surveys of academic R&D expenditures and earned its efforts to develop innovation indicators other than doctorates as well as the survey of federal R&D obliga- R&D expenditure inputs, collect data on them, and tions). Agencies should make sure that the data they fund researchers to analyze them. Other agencies (e.g., provide NSF are accurate and timely. NASA, DOD, DOE, and the National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology) interested in the role of federal Recommendation 6. Although it may be impractical to research in technological innovation, could fund or obtain data on industrial R&D spending by research jointly fund such analyses. field, NSF should administer the Industrial R&D survey at the business unit level to make data on the Recommendation 11. Researchers, professional societ- composition of private R&D more meaningful. ies, industry associations, and federal research agencies should explore the relationships between federal re- search funding and other factors (e.g., population flows Recommendation 7. NSF should consider ways of through the educational system, domestic and foreign obtaining data on the allocation of state expenditures student demand, labor market conditions, etc.) in the on a regular basis. development and use of scientific and engineering talent. Only then can we evaluate the trends in student Recommendation 8. The philanthropic community enrollment and in graduate study programs’ output should cooperate in collecting and publishing data on a and determine how to influence those trends if that is basis comparable to federal research statistics. the conclusion of the analysis.

Next: Introduction »
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $29.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy updated its 1999 analysis (Appendix A, Securing America's Industrial Strength, 1999) of changes since 1990 in the distribution of federal research funding by field of science and engineering) by incorporating FY 1998 and FY 1999 obligations from the NSF Federal Funds survey, with particular attention to the trends in basic research support, changes in research fields' relative dependence on research-sponsoring agencies, and the relationship between changes in research support and changes in enrollment in graduate training in selected fields of research. The Board did not recommend funding levels for any discipline but addressed procedural aspects of R&D budgeting.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!