The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities
istrator regarding current concerns and future needs, and a detailed chart of existing advanced research instrumentation and facilities (ARIF) that had been acquired in the preceding 5 years. The survey was distributed to all doctorate-granting universities classified by the Carnegie Foundation as extensive, as well as a wide array of universities falling under the Carnegie intensive classification and to selected historically black colleges and universities.
In total, the committee queried over 300 universities and received responses from 51 universities and one independent research institution. Of these, 42 institutions completed the survey, and the remainder indicated only that they did not have any ARIF. A list of respondents is included at the end of this appendix. Although the committee finds the information collected in the survey useful, because of the low response rate the committee believes that the results of the survey provide only examples of the state of ARIF at the specific universities and do not represent the full population. The National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act that requested this study also requested a survey of ARIF instruments. That survey is to be begun in 2005 and will provide a fuller and much more accurate picture of the true state of ARIF at the nation’s universities. The committee believes that the results of this survey underestimate the number of ARIF on university campuses, particularly because a number of the largest research universities, which would be most likely to have many ARIF, did not respond to the survey. Additionally, the committee is familiar with a number of the institutions that did complete the survey but did not report all recently acquired ARIF. Thus, the committee strongly advises that the results of the survey be considered judiciously and that the data not be used for budgeting purposes. Although statistical results concerning the overall number of ARIF and the distribution of ARIF types and costs are not representative, the committee seriously weighed the concerns expressed by universities regarding ARIF. The committee also considered common elements among the ARIF reported, particularly the operation and maintenance costs, the sources of initial capital cost, and the ubiquitous need for support personnel.
Of the 42 institutions that completed the survey, 80% were public universities. The total annual budgets of the individual institutions ranged from $47 million to $3 billion. Six institutions reported that they did not have any ARIF without completing the survey.
Most (63%) of the 51 respondents indicated that they had not purchased ARIF in the preceding 5 years. Figure C-1 shows the distribution of ARIF reported by the institutions. In total, 33 ARIF were reported.
Several institutions reported instruments and facilities older than the requested period or below the $2 million mark; such instruments and facilities are not included in this analysis. One institution also reported a $3 million Defense Advanced