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.
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH Roger L. Geiger The Pennsylvania State University INVENTING THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY Higher education began in this country just over 350 years ago when instruction commenced at Harvard College (1636). For the next 250 years, however, such education was largely confined to the collegiate level. The United States lacked places of higher learning that deserved to be called universities-institutions where teaching would reach the existing limits of knowledge, where future scholars could be formed, and where contributions to the advancement of knowledge would be encouraged. For the last century of this span, at least a few Americans were conscious of this lack. Benjamin Rush in 1787 called for this lacuna to be filled by a "national university"; and George Washington was sufficiently inspired by this notion to leave a bequest to this conjectural entity. Another founding father, Thomas Jefferson, dedicated his last years to designing an ambitious plan for the University of Virginia (1824). But the realities of this creation soon belied its founder's enlightened hopes. Still later, Henry Tappan made great progress in attempting to develop a university in Michigan (1852-1863). He established, among other things, an observatory and a genuine Master's Degree; but the backlash attending his efforts caused him to be fired and further progress was postponed. Before the Civil War no lasting organic connections were made between the higher learning and American collegiate education. The generation that stretched from the Civil War to 1890 was a transitional one for American higher education, which witnessed the protodevelopment of universities as well as the establishment of other new institutional forms. Numerous possibilities for linking collegiate and advanced studies were tried during these years, but none was yet able to become dominant. The first American Ph.D.s were awarded at Yale in 1861 for work done within the Sheffield Scientific School. This unit had developed in order to accommodate applied sciences and advanced studies in a separate setting where it would not disturb the pedagogy and social relations of Yale College. The following year Congress passed the Morrill Land Grant Act, which specified that agriculture and the mechanic arts would be taught in conjunction with liberal studies-in effect, the antithesis of the segregation practiced at Yale (even though Sheffield, paradoxically, was the Connecticut recipient of Land-Grant funds). In New York State the combination of philanthropy and Morrill Act funds produced in Cornell University an early prototype of the land-grant university. Utilitarian and liberal education were offered on the same level, and before long research was cultivated there as well. A more radical experiment was begun in Baltimore in the following decade. Impressed by the prestige and accomplishments of German universities, the trustees of the will of Johns Hopkins endeavored to create a German-style university in the United States, one that would for the first time institutionalize research and graduate education. The president designated to implement this design, Daniel Colt Oilman, chose only scholars as the first professors- three Americans with German Ph.D.s and three foreigners. It admitted relatively few, well prepared undergraduates, and conducted them to an advanced level of study in just a three-year course. Most of its students were post-graduates, some supported by university 15
Roger L. Geiger fellowships. Johns Hopkins University burst into a void in American higher education. Its teachers organized the disciplinary associations for history, modern languages, and economics; they also founded the major disciplinary journals in chemistry, mathematics, philology, archaeology, psychology, and modern languages. By 1889 it-had conferred almost as many Ph.D.s as Harvard and Yale combined. In that time it had done more than any other institution to shape an American academic profession. But Johns Hopkins could not fill the void. It remained a small and circumscribed institution. After 1884 its available resources were devoted to establishing a medical school an equally remarkable innovation. The university proper, however, found few means for augmenting its activities. For others, moreover, it was unclear whether or not Johns Hopkins represented the pattern of the American university. Charles W. Eliot, President of Harvard, remained skeptical: "as yet we have no university in America- only aspirants to that eminence," he opined in 1885.3 Within a short time, aspirants and experiments proliferated. Both Clark ( 1889) and Catholic (1887) universities attempted to follow the Hopkins model, only in purer form, by opening as all graduate institutions. Stanford University (1891), on the other hand, adapted the Cornell model, which meant offering liberal, professional, and utilitarian curricula with a smattering of graduate work. In Chicago, William Rainey Harper beguiled John D. Rockefeller into bankrolling an elaborate university enterprise (lS92), dedicated primarily to advancing knowledge, but also designed to bring instruction and edification to a broad slice of the population. Established institutions also experimented in search of a formula for true university work. The Columbia School of Political Science was founded by John Burgess on the assumption that the American college was outmoded. The school recruited students at the senior year of college and led them to the Ph.D. in three years of study.4 These different institutional innovations had different destinies. The dream of a purely graduate university at Clark under G. Stanley Hall proved ephemeral: it failed to hold the backing of its principal benefactor, nor did it win support elsewhere. It persisted as a truncated institution on the income from its initial gift. Catholic University abandoned this chimera and soon admitted undergraduates. Chicago was the most spectacular success as an institution, catapulting into the forefront of American universities. Certain of Harper's many innovations were rapidly copied particularly summer schools and academic departments; but the University of Chicago as a whole remained an idiosyncrasy, its eccentricity made possible by Rockefeller philanthropy. At Columbia, the School of Political Science reverted to the normal pattern. Instead of new departures, the evolutionary path proved in the long run most compelling. At Harvard, Charles Eliot had experimented unsuccessfully with special graduate lectures at the beginning of his tenure. Abandoning that approach, he organized a graduate department (1873~; however, since it offered no separate courses, students were still largely left on their own. Not until the success of Johns Hopkins became apparent did the inadequacy of Harvard's ad hoc arrangements force a change. The faculties of Harvard College and the Lawrence Scientific School were combined, and this new entity, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, became responsible for the reorganized Graduate School (1890~. A set of courses "primarily for graduates" was now offered. For the first time, the immense resources of Harvard were organized and available for graduate work.5 16
United States A graduate school superimposed upon a vigorous undergraduate college had several inherent strengths. A large body of undergraduates permitted the maintenance of a numerous and specialized faculty. It was such a faculty, in turn, that made graduate education and the conduct of research possible. Moreover, it was principally the college that attracted support from American society whether from state legislatures, alumni, or philanthropists-to finance this costly enterprise. Graduate education in the United States remained a modest industry prior to the First World War. Some 300 Ph.D.s were graduated annually by the end of the 1890s, and that figure rose to over 400 a decade later. But undergraduate enrollments boomed after 1890, and the research universities grew even more rapidly than the system as a whole. During this era bigger was better for universities, and both public and private research universities followed this course. From 1905 to 1915 the fourteen universities that Edwin Slosson called the "Great American Universities" enrolled one of every five students in American higher education. These institutions had the resource base to sustain to varying degrees a research capacity.6 The characteristic American pattern that crystallized after 1890 was that of a multipurpose university which combined liberal and professional education with graduate education and _ _ __ O t I . . ~ ~ research. it was the size and tile wealth ot the enterprise as a whole that allowed these institutions to afford the critical and costly inputs to the latter activities eminent and highly paid professors with time for research, libraries, laboratories, and other types of support. Conversely, it was the inability to afford these inputs in sufficient amounts that prevented numerous other aspiring institutions from participating meaningfully in the university research system at this time. The American university research system was thus steeply and inherently stratified. But even among successful institutions, this pattern of the American university had one serious limitation. Because most university revenues were associated with its other activities, there were few resources available for the direct costs of research per se. After 1900 this became an increasing problem because of the rising costs of research in the natural sciences. Previously, American universities had relied upon gifts and endowments to support their purely scientific work in separate observatories and museums, but philanthropy could not be relied upon to support the ongoing investigations within university departments. The American university prior to World War One lacked external backers for its considerable research ambitions.8 THE INTERWAR YEARS: EMERGENCE OF A RESEARCH ECONOMY The most momentous change of the interwar years was the emergence of regular, recurrent sources of funding explicitly for research-a university research economy. These funds came from private sources, primarily from foundations and to a lesser extent from industry. The sums involved were not large in relation to the entire university enterprise, but their effects upon university research were profound.9 The great foundations of the era, essentially the repositories for major portions of the wealth of Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, moved haltingly into the role of patrons for academic research. Immediately after the war the giant Rockefeller Foundation envisioned founding an independent research institute for the natural sciences. When the 17
Roger L. Geiger scientific community could not come to agreement about this plan, it decided instead to create a program of postdoctoral fellowships that would be administered by scientists through the National Research Council (affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences). At the same time, the General Education Board undertook a program of assisting private colleges with matching grants for endowment. It soon became disillusioned, however, with the prospect of significantly bolstering the financial underpinnings of the nations private sector. In 1923 several of the Rockefeller trusts embraced the mission of advancing knowledge through assistance to universities. Beardsley Ruml, new director of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, undertook to build knowledge of society by promoting social science research and graduate training. From 1924 to 1928 he committed $20 million to these efforts, most of which went directly or indirectly to the research universities. Almost simultaneous with the arrival of Ruml, Wickliffe Rose became head of the General Education Board and an especially created counterpart, the International Education Board. He embraced the advancement of basic science, and also focused on furthering research, for the most part within universities. Rose committed $30 million to American science before his retirement in 1929, and almost all of that flowed to the research universities. Both Ruml and Rose sought to advance knowledge by strengthening institutions, and for that reason they concentrated their support upon the best existing science programs "to make the peaks higher', was the apt phrase associated with Rose's approach. Their efforts consequently redounded to the benefit of the established research universities. With few staff to assist them, they parcelled out support in rather large grants to university programs that possessed their confidence. Some grants provided research capital for buildings, endowed institutes, or endowments earmarked for research-related purposes. Other large grants created multi-year support for research at a university in broadly defined areas. In such cases university scientists would themselves determine how the f unds would be scent. The oundat~ons also supported intermediary organizations like the Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council. Such funds were spread more widely through small grants-in-aid and fellowships. Only in the 1930s, when foundation assets were squeezed by the Depression, would they attempt to target their research support more narrowly through individual project grants.~° ~ . . . . . . . . In the interwar period support from industry for university research was less salient (and somewhat less respectable), but it nevertheless played an important role in certain fields. Dupont exhibited the postwar spirit of cooperation with academe by establishing fellowships for graduate work in chemistry. This was the field in which ties with industry were most readily made. A number of universities with strong engineering departments established "engineering research centers" specifically to perform work for industry. Food companies and later pharmaceutical firms also turned to university scientists to investigate specific topics. For the research universities, the 1920s began in dismal fashion with high inflation and a postwar recession; but the last half of the decade brought their greatest prosperity to date. In place of a single strategy for building research capacity, two tracks emerged. For the state universities, bigger was still better. They expanded enrollments, called upon a larger contingent of graduate students to teach introductory courses, and were rewarded by their 18
United States legislatures with larger appropriations. The private universities, however, faced with a shortage of capital early in the decade, restricted their enrollments and concentrated their resources. When prosperity returned, in the form of generous gifts from alumni and the foundations, they were able (again, to varying degrees) to augment substantially their investment in each of their students. This affluence allowed the hiring of eminent scholars and scientists who would carry comparatively light teaching loads. The existence of a privately funded research economy profoundly affected the university research system. The most immediate impact of the capital grants was to create thriving pockets of research at the most favored institutions and in chosen fields. The leading private research universities gained the most, with Chicago easily topping the list. State universities received few large grants during the 1920s. The overall effect, then, was to enhance the stratification of American research universities. The funds that were distributed through the Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council were diffused more widely throughout the university community. In particular, the institution of postdoctoral fellowships made a vital contribution by firmly directing the most promising young scientists into research at the start of their academic careers. In general, foundation support for research had its intended effect in terms of institution building and in raising the stature of American science. The indirect effects of the research economy were nevertheless also important. The stratified nature of the university research system did not seem to produce discouragement among the less favored, but rather inspired emulation. One important factor in the pattern of the American university had been changed. Research was no longer simply a fiscal burden; it was potentially a source of support as well. Foundation giving, in particular, had the effect of raising the priority of research in relation to the university's several other roles. Research and graduate education thus became ingrained aspirations of the nation's leading institutions and indelibly associated with university prestige. As the relationship between universities, with their intramural research capacity, and the extramural research economy were developed during the interwar years, the full consequences of dependence on external funders were not yet realized. Academic science was largely directed by a tacit oligarchy of eminent scientists who shared a number of ideological convictions: university research should be supported by society because of the unforeseen benefits that basic scientific discoveries would bring; funding should be directed to the best scientists, who would produce the most fruitful results; only scientists of established reputation could determine who the best scientists might be; and, private support was preferable to that from government in order to preclude the taint of politics in these delicate decisions. During the Ruml-Rose era, it suited the purposes of the foundations to operate in a manner consistent with these values. They placed their trust in the membership of the research councils or other individual scientists in whom they had confidence. But afterward, it proved difficult to expand support for research under those conditions. An attempt to enlist industry to finance a National Research Fund, which would have been distributed by scientists, failed to elicit the needed backing. Later, during the New Deal, an attempt to induce the federal government to support university research under similar arrangements also failed. By the end of the 1930s it was becoming evident that the privately funded university research economy was not generating adequate resources for the expanding capacity of universities to perform research. 19
Roger L. Geiger Yet there was no appreciation In the research system of how the interests of the funders of research might be accommodated with those of the performers of research. THE POSTWAR ERA: FEDERAL SUPPORT AND PROGRAMMATIC RESEARCH Academic science demonstrated its usefulness to the country during World War Two, and it was continued usefulness that was demanded from universities by the federal government in the years following the war. Prior to 1940, the only significant amounts of federal support for university research were directed to the agricultural extension stations. Afterward, this form of aid was joined by four other distinct channels to comprise the federal component of the university research economy: 1) military research continued to be supported on a broad range of subjects, with the largest amounts going toward research related to radar, fuses, and rocket propulsion; 2) the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) assumed the mantle of the Manhattan Project, and with it control over all research involving radioactive materials; 3) the Public Health Service assumed the outstanding contracts of the wartime Committee on Medical Research and began building the National Institutes of Health (NIH) empire, and 4) last and certainly least was the implicit government responsibility to support basic university research for the advancement of knowledge. This was to be the function of Vannevar Bush's ~_ 1 ~ _ ~ _ . · _ ~. ~ · ~. ~. ~· ~. . . national research foundation; out, unllice the other channels, Congress trailed to pass the enabling legislation during the crucial months of 1946. Instead, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), with far more funds and fewer constraints, became the patron of much basic research until the early 1950s.~3 Quite apparent from the configuration of the 1954 university research economy (see Table l) is the applied cast of university research, even though it was somewhat less so in 1954 than immediately after the war. Federal contract research centers claimed almost half of federal research funds, and the Department of Defense provided almost 50 percent of the funds for university research. This state of affairs was disturbing to many scientists and university leaders. Harvard's James B. Conant, for one, argued that the distinction between basic and applied research was not really the crucial issue, rather, the system had become dominated by programmatic research- "a research program aimed at a specific goal"- to the neglect of `'uncommitted'? or disinterested research, aimed at advancing knowledge without respect to ulterior goals.~4 The problem facing the university research system was that, while all applied research was programmatic in nature, much of the basic research being supported was as well. The principal federal supporters of basic research NIH, AEC, and even the much-lauded ONR all had practical missions. There seemed to be comparatively little support for the kind of unfettered investigations that had long been regarded as the true mission of the university. The dominant presence of the federal government in the postwar research economy produced a research system that was heavily skewed toward programmatic ends. Some fields flourished, particularly physics and engineering; while in others research funds remained act to obtain. Funds were also lacking to 'grease the wheels of science"-by supporting fellowships, exchanges, meetings, and publications. Probably most serious was the absence of programs to support the strengthening of the research capacities of universities. ~ · ~ ~ - ~ . . . . · ~ 20
United States TABLE 1 UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ECONOMY, 1954 University Expenditures for Separate~-Budgeted Research by Source of Funds ($ Millions) TOTAL UNIVERSITY R&D Total Federal Defense HEW (largely NIH) AEC NSF Other Federal Institu tion/State/Local Foundations Industry Private gifts & other Not included above: Agriculture Federal State & Local lEKI)Cs t20 centers] 205.5 141.7 101.2 19.2 16.6 1.4 3.4 17.5 22.7 18.6 5.0 74.2 13.5 60.7 130.0 SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Scienapc Research and Development in Colleges and Universiizes: Expenditures and Manpower, 1954. In the immediate postwar era the universities were tossed by some confusing cross-currents. The influx of students as a result of the &.I. Bill partially revitalized institutional finances after the ravages of the Great Depression and the deprivations of the war years. This forced overenrollment pushed real per-student spending figures to extremely low figures. For universities in general, the decades of the 1930s and 1940s were ones of low investment in physical capital. The l950s brought first the uncertainties of the Korean War, accompanied by renewed inflation. Not until the mid-19SOs was higher education able to benefit from a strong economy and ~ normal financial environment. 21
Roger L. Geiger State and private universities were affected somewhat differently by these conditions. The research-oriented state universities expanded their budgets in order to accommodate the veterans, and then largely retained these gains as enrollments subsided. By 1955 they had considerably increased their instructional spending (and expanded their faculties). Private universities generally suffered from the diminished purchasing power of their endowment income and from a dearth of capital for improvements and additions. Voluntary support, on which they depended for capital, did not surpass the peak levels of 1928-1931 until after 1955. Improvements in research capacity prior to 1955 were made from exceedingly low levels, except perhaps at the most favored centers of research. Thus, even in the mid-1950s faculty were generally underpaid and virtually every university had a long wish list of badly needed facilities. The situation was epitomized in the medical schools, where there was an abundance of research funding, while the schools themselves were on the brink of insolvency. This financial weakness at the institutional level, together with the concentrated nature of the research economy, combined to produce the characteristic qualities of the university research system in the postwar era. Immediately after the war there was an intense, and not altogether healthy, competition for the services of scientists, especially atomic physicists. They naturally tended to cluster at the leading universities which offered them the most propitious conditions for research. At the same time, the continuation of wartime laboratories assured that certain fields would be dominated by the institutions at which they were located. These two factors alone were sufficient to account for the high concentration of postwar research. In fact, the concentration of research funding declined rather steadily from the postwar years to the present. (See Table 2. ~ In 1952, ten universities received 43.4 percent of federal research TABLE 2 CONCENTRATION OF FUNDING Federal R&D Obligations to Top Ten Research Universities as a Percent of Total Federal Obligations for University R&D 1952 1958 1968 1975 1987 43.4% 37.0% 27.7% 25.8% 21.9% NOTE: Top-ten universities defined as the ten universities with largest expenditures for separately-budgeted R&D derived from federal government sources. SOURCE: National Science Foundation 22
United States funds (not including Federally-funded Research and Development Centers [FFRDCs]~; whereas their share currently is close to half that figure. Even in 1955, when FFRDCs are excluded, only perhaps six universities were expending m-ore than $10 million on organized research MIT, Chicago, UC Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, and Columbia. ,, Agencies that supported Little Science through modest, short-term grants ONR, NIH, and later the National Science Foundation (NSF)- distributed their funds fairly widely, even considering the concentration of research talent. Elsewhere, however, the system was characterized by quasi-permanent relationships between large university laboratories (and especially FFRDCs) and their mission-agency patrons. These latter relationships accounted for the vast bulk of funds. There was a fair degree of pluralism in the postwar research economy if one took into account the several federal patrons; however, the funding possibilities for individual fields were often quite circumscribed. The postwar statesmen of science Bush, Conant, and Karl Compton, among others had been concerned to preserve the pluralism of American university research by maintaining viable private alternatives to federal funding. In the natural sciences, though, just what they had feared came to pass. The overweening presence of federal support caused private foundations to withdraw from the field. In the life sciences the picture was more mixed. The foundations committed to this area were gradually overshadowed by the growth of NIH, but private funders remained and sought out unfilled niches. Only the social sciences continued to rely upon the private foundations f or research f unding, although the Ford Foundation came to dominate this area by the mid- 1 950s. Universities responded to the expanding research economy with exasperation and apprehension, but in hindsight their adaptations reflected pragmatism and flexibility. The arrangements for accounting for organized research, which had been quite casual before the war, had to be regularized and eventually confided to a separate administrative unit. The most prominent organizational difficulty was created by the hypertrophy of research in selected areas of the university. As research became an end in itself, with its own continuing financing, the complementarily of teaching and research, upon which the academic departments were predicated, was superseded. Three kinds of adaptations were evident. In medical schools and sometimes in physics departments regular faculty positions were decoupled from departmental finances: permanent faculty were hired on "soft" money. In other areas the demands of research were often met by creating Organized Research Units [ORUs]. Such units were not new to American universities, but the extensive reliance upon them was.is The universities that had the largest amounts of research funding notably MIT and Berkeley also had the most ORUs. The federal contract research centers were a direct outgrowth of the war. For at least a decade a sorting process took place which tended to isolate some types of research in this kind of institutional quarantine (e.g. Lawrence Livermore). For a time federal funding for FFRDCs nearly equaled all federal support for university research proper, they exhibited much slower growth. The dynamics of FFRDCs reflected the state of the particular fields in which they operated, as well as the prosperity of their patrons. Their relationship with their respective universities, however, was in most cases tenuous. but after the 1950s 23
Roger L. Geiger THE SPUTNIK ERA, 1957-1967 The transformation of the un ~. ~e be, ~ . adversity research system began in the mid-1950s. Prosperity brought a marked expansion ot the research economy: expenditures for research in universities proper grew by 60 percent from 1954 to 195S, that is, before the effects of Sputnik were felt. Increases were roughly comparable in both federal and nonfederal funding, but within the federal component two opposed tendencies were evident. Funding from the armed services became decidedly more pragmatic as military budgets came under some unaccustomed pressure. The result seems to have been greater use of FFRDCs in preference to research in universities proper. Elsewhere, funding was increased considerably by the NIH and the AEC, while the NSF finally became a significant funder of university research. With these changes the proportion of basic research in the university totals rose from 62 percent to 70 percent. The growth of research funds was greatest in the life sciences (+114 percent), reflecting the prosperity of NIH and private funders. The physical sciences also did well (+76 percent), as the AEC expanded its on-campus support. Engineering (+6 percent) reflected the armed services' preference for FFRDCs. These years also witnessed a dramatic improvement in university research capacity, particularly at the major private institutions. In general, public research universities made greater improvements in per-student expenditures before 1955 (partly because of enrollment growth thereafter), and private universities, capitalizing on propitious financial conditions and considerably higher levels of voluntary support, generally registered their greatest increases in the decade after 1955. Because of changes in the research economy, university research became less concentrated. Whereas in 1954 only 11 universities expended more than $5 million on separately budgeted research (not including agriculture and FFRDCs3 by 1958 20 institutions had crossed that threshold. The ten leading recipients of federal research funds in 1954 received 46 percent of the total (again, excluding agriculture and FFRDCs), but in 1958 their share had dropped to 37 percent. [N.B. these exclusions reflect NSF bookkeeping] In the years prior to Sputnik, the university research system was evolving away from the cast that it had taken immediately after the war. It was encouraged in this respect by a campaign extolling the virtues of basic research that was orchestrated by NSF, and conducted by university scientists and administrators. This trend was impeded by the frugality of the Eisenhower Administration and the increasingly pragmatic orientation of the armed services. Sputnik resolved this debate in favor of basic research. Within a few Tears the system was transformed into the antithesis of what it had been in the postwar era.i The U.S. responded to Sputnik with new and substantial commitments to Space, Science, and Education. New programs in each of these areas redounded to the benefit of the research universities. The preoccupations with space resulted in the creation of NASA. Although the ultimate thrust of NASA was toward Big Science and engineering, it forged numerous links with university research during the 1960s. As a newcomer agency, eager to build a network with academic science, it was in a position analogous to ONR in the late 1940s. It provided generous funding on liberal terms to selected groups of scientists at many institutions. By 1966 NASA was supplying almost 10 percent of federal funds for academic R&D; and some 36 universities were receiving more than $1 million from the agency. The National Defense Education Act (1958) was the beginning of regular federal support for graduate students, foreign languages and area studies. The federal government thus 24
United States undertook to support the research role of universities in ways other than the funding of research. The most spectacular gains were nevertheless made in precisely this last area. The federal government committed itself unequivocally to supporting basic research in the universities for the sake of advancing knowledge (and also besting the Soviets). From 1958 to 1968 federal funds for basic university research rose from $178 million to $1,251 million-a seven-fold increase during ~ decade of relatively stable prices. This was by far the most significant component of growth in an expanding research economy. Moreover, it tilted the balance of basic research into university laboratories: the national budget for basic research grew by $2,400 million during these years; university-based research accounted for $1,400 million of this increase; and federal funds comprised $1,100 million of that. Whereas universities expended 32 percent of the funds for basic research in 1958, they spent 57 percent of the total in 1968. This was a golden age for academic science. (See Table 3.) TABLE 3 INDICATORS OF CHANGE IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH ROLE Gross National Total Basic Percent Percent National Basic Percent Univ. Percent Univ. Nat. Univ. Product Research1 GNP R&D2 GNP Research3 Basic4 ResearchS Year ($ Mill.) .($ Mill.) ~1 ($ Mill! ~($ Mill.] 1953 364,900 441 .12 255 .07 1 10 25 43 1960 506,500 1,197 .24 646 .12 433 36 67 1964 637,700 2,289 .36 1,275 .20 1,003 44 79 1968 873,400 3,296 38 2,149 .25 1,649 50 77 1986 4,291,000 14,163 .33 10,600 .24 7,100 50 67 I Separate~-budgeted expenditures for basic research within government, industry, universities, and non-profit laboratones. 2 Separately-budgeted expenditures for basic research, applied research, and development within institutions of higher education, excluding t~XDCs. 3 Separately-budgeted expenditures for basic research within institutions of higher education, excluding t~KDCs. 4 Separately-budgeted expenditures for basic research within institutions of higher education, excluding th~DCs, as a percent of total national basic research expenditures. 5 Separately-budgeted expenditures for basic research within institutions of higher education, excluding t~KDCs, as a percent of total research e~nditllr~-for heir r~~^rrh ^~1;~ In. Ha ~,~1~ ~ ~ lo:_ :__.:. .:~ ¢ do- hi_ education. _ ~^w ^_^ ~v-~ &_v ~All ~- &~1~t Ells ~1~1~11~1tllll1 1llVlttUtl~IlS 01 nlglle~ SOURCE: National Science Foundation 25
Roger L. Geiger The expansion of the research economy was accompanied by the recognition of the need to strengthen the infrastructure for university research. A report from the President's Science Advisory Committee [Seaborg Committee] recommended in 1960 that the number of research universities in the nation should be doubled-from 15-20 to 30-40.~7 The Ford Foundation had already begun a program of upgrading selected universities, and federal programs eventually followed at the principal agencies supporting university research. During the 1960s for the first time the federal government provided capital funds in substantial magnitudes to enhance the research capacity of universities. By 1968 the government was supplying almost one-third of the capital funds expended by universities compared to a proportion of about one-eighth in the l980s. Federal support for infrastructural needs, together with greater financial support from other sources, rectified one of the conditions that lay behind the substantial concentration in the university research system the restricted research capacity of all but a few institutions. The growing abundance of funds for research. esoeciallv investi~ator-initiated Projects. ended ~ %, ~ another limitation. Penally, as the graduate schools turned out an increasing number ot research-oriented Ph.D.s, the number of university researchers greatly increased. By 196S, 41 universities were receiving more than $10 million in federal R&D obligations, and the share of the total claimed by the first ten had declined to 27.7 percent. By the mid-1960s the post-Sputnik accretions to the research economy had overgrown the configurations of the postwar-era research economy. Comparing 1958 and 196S, the additional funding to NIH and NSF, plus the net addition of NASA, comprised more than 60 percent of federal funding for university R&D. By the latter year it appeared that an "Academic Revolution" had taken place, that the values of the graduate school had gained ascendancy _ in American universities. The domination of investigation by disciplinary paradigms even became the object of criticism: a crisis of "relevance" was perceived in the university curriculum, and perhaps in the conduct of research itself. Meanwhile, much of the programmatic research sponsored by the Department of Defense was deemed unfit for university campuses. The "new" federal funds in the research economy were spread far more widely than the "old" funds had been, thereby furthering the decentralization of the research system. This, in turn, enhanced competition. University leaders and academic scientists greeted the new regime with alacrity. The emphasis given to basic research allowed them to do what they felt universities ought to be doing, and without the misgivings about secrecy, continuity, or external control that had plagued them during the preceding era. Thus, universities readily adapted bY increasing their emphasis on research and its attendant values. This meant aggressively recruiting productive scholars and scientists, and devoting their own discretionary funds to building research capacity. This was the rational course. For perhaps the first time in university history, research seemed to be a remunerative activity for a substantial number of institutions. Not only did the federal government stand ready to assist universities to meet the high overhead expenses associated with efforts to maintain and extend research capacity, but that capacity could now assuredly generate a continuing flow of project funds and indirect-cost reimbursements. In this heady environment, few expressed real concern over the attenuation of pluralism. The Seaborg Committee had pronounced that the federal government, and only the federal 26
United States government, was responsible for expanding the system of university research. During the 1960s each discipline in turn defined its absolutely indispensable research needs, and then, in effect, presented the bill to the public. The federal contribution to academic R&D rose from 53 percent in 1953, to 63 percent in 1960, to a peak of 74 percent in 1966; and remained above 70 percent for the remainder of the decade. (See Table 4.) Private contributions to university research (industry and nonprofits) fell as low as 8.7 percent (1967-69~. At this juncture universities finally were forced to face the consequences of overdependence on a single source the condition that had worried university leaders during the preceding postwar era. TABLE 4 FEDERAL DEPENDENCE Share of Separately-Budgeted University R&D Supported by Federal Funds 1953 1960 1966 1976 1987 53% 63% 74% 67% 63% SOURCE: National Science Foundation THE STAGNANT DECADE, 1968-77 The momentum imparted to academic science by the launch of Sputnik lasted for ten years. The year 1968 represents a kind of apogee for the university research system in terms of real expenditures and federal support for research. This was not solely a university phenomenon; research expenditures for the country as a whole peaked in 1968 as well. The university research economy remained roughly stable in real terms for the next seven years, through 1975, while the national research economy actually declined by nearly 10 per cent. Significant growth in university research did not occur again until 1978. The system thus experienced a decade of stagnation, which in some cases brought outright retrenchment. Despite the transition from expansion to stagnation, the university research system changed only slowly during this decade. The federal contribution to university research fell somewhat to 67 percent. Applied research fared somewhat better than basic, so that the proportion of the latter declined from 77 percent (1968) to 69 percent (1977~. Still, despite evident dissatisfaction with purely disinterested academic research, there was little movement toward a more programmatic orientation. The proportions of academic science obligations awarded by NIH and NSF remained about the same, although both agencies altered their policies by devoting significantly more of their funds to actual research. This behavior maintained the pool of project funds, but had an additional, adverse impact on universities. During the "Stagnant Decade" federal support of the kind that bolstered university research capacities was severely curtailed. Funds for R&D plant peaked at $126 million in 1965, but averaged just $35 million annually during the 1970s (current A. Federal fellowship support reached a high ~. 27
Roger [. G~f,~r fl~ure of $447 miOlon in 1967, but s100d at only $185 minion ~ decade 1~1er. Unlversldes wore asked to do more on 1hcir own 10 sustain 1holr rcscarch roles, and they ~cre bard-pressed 10 meet this challenge. lhese years ~cre dlfflcul1 ones for unlverslty fluanccs. lbo prlvste unlvcrsltlcs, ln ~cnerat had teDded to overcommlt themselves durlog thc lstc 1 960s, sud ss s result concentrstcd on putdDg tholr budgets bsck ln10 the black durlDg 1he early 1970s. Stste research unlvcrsltles came uDder lDcrcsslag pressure durlog the esrly 1970s to justify thclr high costs to egalltsclan-mlnded leglslator~ From sbout 1968 lt ~ss vlrtuslly tskon for grsutcd ths1 s major new federal progrsm would have to bc lnl11ated ln order to rectlEy thc flnancla1 condldons prcvalUng 1n blghcr cducstlon. Wben ~ came ln 1972, however, Congrcss provldcd c~panded forms of ~udcat flasoclal ald lostead of lnshtutlonsl ald that would have bccD of lmmcdlste succor to tbe research unlversltles. under thcsc condltlons, fc~ lastltutlons ~crc able to sugmcnt thclr research capacldes during thc 1968-1977 pcrlod. Ibclr problems ~^~_~ growth ln noD-lnstructlonal demands, sucb as energy cost~ admlolstrs11vc rcqulremcnt~ and 1hc neccsslty of mcctlng federal regula110ns. Research ~ss ln fact severely crowded ss sn lnstltutlona1 prlorlty by other concerns. Deccntrallzatlon ncverthcless continued ss tbe proportion of federal resesrcb funds rccclvcd by the top ten unlversldes decHned from 29 1 porcen1 ln 196710 25.8 percon1 ln 1973. It sccmcd, however, 1hat thc sts~natlon ln research funding and thc persktent flnanclal dlfficul11cs facing unlvcrsldcs would now favor thc lesdlng lnstltutlons/9 As thc competltlon for rcscarch funds bccamc more lnicusc, the advantage of those unlvcrsldes ~lth the hlghcst pccr-rstcd faculdcs ought to have become more pronounced. Sustalning s rcscarch commllmcnt sho sccmcd to demand s larger investment of lnshtutlona1 funds. ^t the sccond-tlcr rcscarch unlvcrsldcs, howcvcr, ~ dc-cmphas~ of research sccmcd sppsrcnt. Insofar as lnslbuilons ~crc adap11ng 10 1hls ~1usilon, they appcarcd to be contcmplatlng ~ ~lthdrswal from rcscarch commltmcnts cithcr to turn towsrd undcrgrsdusic sud profcsslonsl 1cschlng, or 10 sbandon brosd rcscarch/grsdustc programs for more speclaHzcd undcrtsklngs. It conscqucntly sppcarcd 1hst 1hc country could not sustain ss rcscarch unlvcrshlcs thc number of lns1Rutlons 1hst had ssplrcd 10 thst ststus ln thc 1960s snd tha1 1hc secular trend toward dcccntrallzatlon of unlvcrslty rcscarch ~ss sbou1 to be rcvcrsed. ~E C~ E~ 1978-1988 In actuality, 1hC univcrslty rcscarch system nelthcr contlnucd 10 stagnate nor contracted 10~ard 1hc peak lnstitutlons. Instcad, 1hc system renc~ed lts secular oxpanslon bcglnnlng abou1 J978. In 1cn yesrs (1977-19B7) i1 grew 56~ pcrccot 1n rca1 terms not ~ bad showing for msturc system thst expcrlcnccd UtOc growth ln studcn1s or faculty. h4orcovcr, ln a largely unforcsccn devclopmcnt, suppor1 for thc lucrcssc ln rcscarch came dlspropor110nstely from nonfcdcral sources. Fcdcra1 funds for unlvcrslty R&D lncrcssed by 10 pcrceD1agc points less than thc svcra~c, whuc nonfcdcral sources grc~ by t~cnly points more. The [sstest growing single sou[cc of unlvcrslty rcscarch supporl ~ss private industry, whlcb funded ~ pcrccn1 of thc 198 7 10taL Tha1 sl~-pcrccn1 flgurc, in fac1, undcrststcs 1hC rlslng lmportancc of unlvcrslty-lndustry ties. A good par1 of nonprofl1 support of scademlc rcsesrch (perhaps anolhcr ~ pcrcc~t of 1hC totsp probably comes fro m corporate or lndustry-rclatcd founds1lons; ~e ~0
United States and some state support is now directed toward subsidizing university-industry linkages. The expansion of research support from nongovernmental sources has increased the actual and perceived pluralism of the system. No longer are the research universities considered to be wards of the federal government: When Robert Rosenzweig and Barbara Turlington wrote of this in 1982 they deliberately referred to "The Research Universities and Their Patrons."20 The decade of the 1980s was reasonably prosperous for the research universities generally; their instructional budgets grew by roughly 30 percent in real terms (1974-76 to 1984-86~. This figure most likely understates the improvement that has taken place in their financial positions. The privatization of university income has almost certainly been more pronounced than that for just research funds. The great gains of the 1980s for universities have come from increased tuition (the delayed payoff from the expansion of student aid) and voluntary support. Without a doubt, many universities have used these funds to enhance research capacity; but it has also been common to bolster those aspects of the university that most directly affect its ability to attract students and raise money admissions, development, student aid, and perhaps those structures that most appeal to students and alumni. Unlike the 1960s, universities have acted conservatively toward creating new faculty lines. The financial conditions of the 1 980s have been especially beneficial to the leading research universities. They have well established channels for raising voluntary support and a surplus of applicants with little sensitivity to price. Despite these factors, and despite the continued stiff competition for federal research funds, the leading research universities have by-and-large not kept pace with the growth of total R&D expenditures. The proportion of federal R&D funds received by the ten largest recipients declined to 22 percent in 1987; their share of total R&D expenditures was even less-19 percent. Smaller research universities, or at least some of them, have been increasing their share of research funding. (See Tables 5 and 6.) It is difficult to characterize these advancing institutions with any precision. They include many state institutions from Sunbelt states where, at least until recently, economic growth has provided the underpinning for increases in enrollment and state support. Also prominent are public and private universities with close ties to industry, especially engineering schools. For the former group, the old formula of more students and higher appropriations seems to have translated into greater research capacity. For the latter group, links with the fastest growing segment of the research economy have produced above average growth. More generally, this pattern would indicate that the growth in the research economy during the 1980s has been due substantially to the initiative and adaptation of individual institutions. CONCLUSION The university research system of the United States has retained its fundamental features despite a century of growth and the superimposition of significant additional components. Most importantly, the research capacity continues to depend in large measure on the vigor of individual universities, while the amount of research performed depends upon funding from the extramural research economy. Secondly, these external funds represent a shifting balance between support for disinterested basic research in the academic disciplines and programmatic research in keeping with the interests of funders. The dynamics of the university research system, past and present, can be portrayed in terms of these two dichotomies. 29
Roger L. Geiger TABLE 5 RELATIVE SHIFT IN R&D EXPENDITURE SHARE: 1974-76 TO 1984~6 Slightly Increased Slightly Decreased Decreased Research Share Research Share Research Share Cornell MIT Michigan Stanford Yale UC Berkeley Texas Illinois Princeton Caltech UCLA Wisconsin Minnesota Harvard Penn Columbia Chicago SOURCE: National Science Foundation TABLE 6 CHANGE IN R&D SHARE OF LARGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES 1974-76 TO 1984 86 Positive Change >20% 10 to 20% 0 to 10% Universities Performing ~ 2.0% in 1974-1976 Universities Performing 1.0-2.0% in 1974-1976 0 2 1 SOURCE: National Science Foundation Negative Change 0 to -10% -10 to -20% <-20% 2 8 5 o 2 4 30
United States The dependence for research capacity upon the resources of individual universities has in one sense been a traditional weakness of the American system. Only in the decade after Sputnik did the federal government assume the responsibility to enhance research capacities across a wide range of universities. Today, when the litany of problems confronting research universities is recited, most of the items can be associated with this issue: the lack of support for infrastructure, including instrumentation; and the impossible demands upon research university libraries. The inadequate support for graduate students, and the consequent concern about the pipeline for future scientists, would also belong partly with this list. ~ In addition, the heterodox efforts of a few universities to lobby Congress for special appropriations would seem to be a pathological expression of these university needs and university aspirations. In another sense, the continued decentralization of university research conveys a different message. A growing number of research universities are clearly managing to expand their research capacities. The decentralization of university research is not a result of federal pressures to spread research funding more widely: total expenditures for research are more decentralized than expenditures from just federal funds. Research has increased as a university priority since the stagnant years of the 1970s. The result, despite relatively little assistance from the federal government, has been to augment the research capacity of American universities. The research economy has grown moderately during the 1980s, but the current fear is that federal budgetary restrictions will preclude a continuation of this expansion, which is necessary to maintain the overall health of the university research system. The positive side of this situation is that the system has been growing less dependent upon federal funds. Decentralization has tended to increase the pluralism of funding sources. Most likely, advancing research universities have been able to tap local sources of support for their research. By and large, however, this has meant a greater proportion of programmatic funding. There can be little doubt that the 1 980s has witnessed a disproportionate growth in programmatic support for academic research. Not only has funding from industry been the fastest growing component, but it has been supplemented by numerous federal and state programs designed to promote technology transfer and closer links between universities and industry. In one respect this trend represents an overdue correction to the attitude of disdain for applications and business that reigned during the post-Sputnik decade. But it has not been an unmixed blessing. Critics have worried, much as they did in the postwar era, about the diversion of scientists from basic research and about the possible perversion of essential elements of scientific communications. In addition, programmatic support cannot substitute in most fields for disinterested disciplinary research. Above all, it is necessary to maintain the vigor of the basic research goose if the golden eggs of technology are going to be gathered. On the whole, though, the current balance may be a healthy one. The research universities today may be more responsive to the needs of American society than any time in the past. If so, this happy state is not the result of any particular policy. Rather, it stems from the habits of flexibility and adaptability that have well served American universities throughout the first century of their history. 31
Roger L. Geiger NOTES 1. D. Madsen, 17ze National University: Enduring Dream of the USA, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1966; P. Bruce, History of the University of Virginia, 1819-1919: The Lengthening Shadow of One Man, New York, 1920; H. H. Peckham, The Making of the University of Michigan, 1817-1967, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967. 2. B. M. Kelley, Yale: A History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974; E. D. Eddy, Jr., Colleges for Our Land and Time: The Land-Grant Idea in American Education, New York: Harper, 1957; M. Bishop, A History of Comell, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962. 3. H. Hawkins, Pioneer: a History of the Johns Hopkins University, 18741889' Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960; C. W. Eliot, "Liberty in Education," American Higher Education: a Documentary History, edited by R. Hofstadter and W. Smith, (eds.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, p. 712. 4. 5. W. C. Ryan, Studies in Early Graduate Education: The Johns Hopkins University, Clark University, and the University of Chicago, New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1939; O. E. Elliott, Stanford University: the First Twenty-Five Years, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1937; R. J. Storr, Harper's University: the Beginnings-a History of the University of Chicago, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966; J. W. Burgess, Reminiscences of an American Scholar, New York: Columbia University Press, 1934, pp. 191-244. S. E. Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard, 163~1936, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936; H. James, C W. Eliot: President of Harvard University, 1869-1909, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930, Vol. 2, pp. 3-28; H. Hawkins, Between Harvard and America: the Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot, New York: Oxford University Press, 1972, pp. 45-79. 6. R. L. Geiger, "Research, Graduate Education, and the Ecology of American Universities: an Interpretive History," The Three Missions, edited by S. Rothblatt and B. Wittrock, (in press); R. L. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge: the Growth of American Research Universities, 1900 1940, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986; E. E. Slosson, Great American Universities. New York: Macmillan, 1910. 7. The classic account remains L. R. Veysey, The Emergence of the American Unc~ersi~, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. 8. Geiger, To Advance Knowledge, pp. 67-93. 9. The material in this section draws chiefly upon Geiger, To Advance Knowledge. 10. J. Bulmer and M. Bulmer, "Philanthropy and Social Science in the 1920s: Beardsley Ruml and the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 1922-1929," Minerva, Vol. 19 (1981), pp. 347-407; R. E. Kohler, Science and Philanthropy: Wickliffe Rose and the International Education Board, Minerva' Vol. 23 (1985), pp. 75-95; R. E. Kohler, "The Management of Science: the Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Programme in Molecular Biology," Minerva, Vol. 14 (1976), pp. 279-306. 11. J. W. Servos, "The Industrial Relations of Science: Chemical Engineering at MIT, 1900-1939," Isis, Vol. 71 (1980), pp. 531~9; ~ 1hackray, "University-Industry Connections and Chemical Research: a Historical Perspective", University-Industry Research Relationships: Selected Studies, Washington, D.C.: National Science Board, 1982; D. Noble, America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, New York: Oxford University Press 1977; J. P. Swann, Academic Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Cooperative Research in Twentieth- Century America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. 12. We material which follows draws from R. L. Geiger, Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II, New York: Oxford University Press, (in progress). 32
United States 13. ~ H. Dupree, Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Lead, Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1964; H. M. Sapolsky, "Academic Science and the Military: the Years Since World War Hero", The Sciences in the Amencan Contest: New Perspectives, edited by N. Reingold, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1979, pp. 379-99; V. Bush, Science-the Endless Frontier, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1960 [reprint]. 14. J. B. Conant, "Forward" in National Science Foundation,Annual Report> 195~1951, viii. 15. R. L. Geiger, "Organized Research Units: Their Role in the Development of University Research," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1990~: pp. 1-19. 16. R. L. Geiger, "What Happened after Sputnik Reassessing the Federal Impact on University Research 1958-1968," Science and the Federal Patron: Post-World War II Government Support for American Science, edited by N. Reingold and D. Van Keuren, (forthcoming). 17. President's Science Advisory Committee, Scientific Progress, the Universities, arid the Federal Goverrunent, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. 18. D. S. Greenberg, The Politics of Pure Science, New York: New American Library, 1967; K Kofmehl, "COSEPUP, Congress and Scientific Advice," 28: (1966), pp. 100-120. 19. B. L. Smith and J. Karlesky, We State of Academic Science, Volumes I and II, New York: Change Magazine Press, 1977-78. 20. R. M. Rosenzweig, with B. Turlington, The Research Universities and Their Patrons, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. 21. Ibid; Research Universities and the National Interest: A Report of Fifteen University Presidents. New York: Lee Ford Foundation, 1978.; American Society for Engineering Education, Size Qualify of Engineering Education Washington, D.C., 1986; D. Fuqua, American Science and Science Policy Issues: Chairman's Report to the Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., 1986; B. L. Smith, editor, The State of Graduate Education, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1985. 33
Roger L. Geiger BIBLIOGRAPHY Bishop, M. A History of Cornell. Ithaca: Cornell Un~versi~q Press, 1962. Bruce, P.N History of the Ur~iversi~ of Virginia, 1819-1919: The Lengthening Shadow of One Man New York, 1920. Bulmer, J. and M. Bulmer. "Philanthropy and Social Science in the 1920s: Beardsley Ruml and the Aura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, 1922-1929." Minerva. Vol. 19 (1981), pp. 347407. Burgess, J. W. Reminiscences of an American Scholar. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. Bush, V. Science-the Endless Frontier. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1960. [reprint] Dupree, A H. Federal Support of Basic Research in Institutions of Higher Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1964. Eddy, E. D., Jr. Colleges for Our Land and Time: The Land-Grant Idea in American Education. New York: Harper, 1957. Eliot, C. W. "Liberty in Education." American Higher Education: A Documentary History. Edited by R. Hofstadter and W. Smith. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Elliott, O. E. Stanford University: the First Twenty-Five Years. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1937. Geiger, R. L. "Organized Research Units: Their Role in the Development of University Research." Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 61. No. 1. (1990~: pp. 1-19. Geiger, R. L. "Research, Graduate Education, and the Ecology of American Universities: An Interpretive History." 17ze Three Missions. Edited by S. Rothblatt and B. Wittrock. (Forthcoming) Geiger, R. L. Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. (In progress) Geiger, R. L. To Advance Knowledge: the Growth of American Research Universities, 1900-1940. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Geiger, R. L. "What Happened after Sputnik: Reassessing the Federal Impact on University Research 1958-1968." Science and the Federal Patron: Post-World War II Govemment Support for American Science. Edited by N. Reingold and D. Van Keuren. (Forthcoming) Greenberg, D. S. The Politics of Pure Science. New York: New American Library, 1967. Hawkins, H. Between Harvard and America: the Educational Leadership of Charles W. Eliot. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Hawkins, H. Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University, 1874-1889. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1960. James, H. C. ~ Eliot: President of Harvard University, 1869-1909. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1930. 34
United States Kelley, B. M. Yale: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974. Kohler, R. E. "Science and Philanthropy: Wickliffe Rose and the International Education Board." Minerals Vol. 23 (1985), pp. 75-95. Kohler, R. E. "The Management of Science: the Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Programme in Molecular Biology." Minerva. Vol. 14 (1976), pp. 279-306. Madsen, D. 17ze National University: Enduring Dream of the USA. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1966. Morison, S. E. Three Centuries ofHarvard, 163~1936. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936. Noble, D. America by Design: Science, Technology, arid the Rise of Corporate Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Peckham, H. H. The Making of the University of Michigan', 1817-1967. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1967 President's Science Advisory Committee. Scientific Progress, the Universities, and the Federal Government Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. Rosenzweig, R. M. with B. Turlington. The Research Universities and Their Patrons. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Ryan, W. C. Studies in Early Graduate Education: The Johns Hopkins University, Clark University, arid the University of Chicago. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1939. Sapolsky, H. M. "Academic Science and the Military: the Years Since World War Two." The Sciences in the American Contest: New Perspectives. Edited by N. Reingold. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press, 1979. Servos, J. W. "The Industrial Relations of Science: Chemical Engineering at MIT, 1900-1939." Isis. Vol. 71 (1980), pp. 53149 Slo~sson, S. E. Great American Universities. New York: Macmillan, 1910. Smith, B. L. and J. Karlesky. The State of Academic Science. Volumes I and II. New York: Change Magazine Press, 1977-78. Storr, R. J. Harper's University: the Beginnings-a History of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Swann, J. P. Acadenuc Scientists and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Cooperative Research in Twenneth-Cen~y America Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Thackray, ~ "University-Industry Connections and Chemical Research: a Historical Perspective." University-Indust~y Research Relationships: Selected Studies. Washington, D.C.: National Science Board, 1982. Veysey, L. R. The Emergence of the American University. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. 35
JAPAN
