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.
APPENDI X B B1 B2 B4 Execut ive Summa ry, The Sc lent if ic Instrumentation Needs of Research Univers Association of American Universities, 1980 · . tithes, Executive Summary, The Nation' s Deteriorating University Research Facilities, Association of American Universities, 1981 Agenda, Symposium on the Recruitment of Clinic fans for Mental Health Research, held in Washington, D . C., on June 19, 1980 Biomedical and Behavioral Science Fields Used in the Survey of Earned Doctorates 151 PAGE 152 154 157 159
APPENDIX B1 The Scientific Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY assess the current status of scientific instru- Me nation's fixture research productivity and for the mentation in major research universities training offu~re generations of scientists and engineers. identify factors which facilitate or impede its development, acquisition, use, and maintenance estimate the future consequences of present funding policies recommend appropriate policy changes METHODOLOGY · sixteen universities, six national and goveru- ment laboratories, and nine commercial labora- tories were visited; about 80 department heads and over 250 researchers and research adm~ isuators were interviewed in the universities; addition, the views of approximately 60 rev searchers and research managers were gathered visits to national, government, and commercial laboratones five fields of science and en~neenag were studied physics, cheesy, biological sciences, earth sciences, and electrical engineering numencal data on instrumentation acquisition, age, and replacement were gathered from 14 universities and four commercial laboratories THE PROBLEM Instrumentation is essential for progress in expen- mental research. Scientific knowledge has advanced rapidly; new instruments, more costly but qualitatively superior to earlier ones, have allowed measurements previously impossible. We rate of change teas been ~eat, competition among researchers Intense. The capacity of university researchers to word: at the frontiers of knowledge has important consequences for 152 The federal government has adopted a Ninety of fimding policies for the support of research insert} mentation: the compete project system, special instrumentation promos, formula want programs, block-fimded centers, federally sponsored research centers, and regional ~nstn~mentabon centers chief among them. For about 15 Yeats, federal support for basic research has gradually declined!; now support levels are further str~ed by rapid inflation. But inflationary price increases are simply the nag bash line upon which are supenmposed He frequently much lamer increases resulting from instumentabon advances. ASSESSMENT The Heat diversity of instn~mentation needs found among institutions visited precludes simple gener- alizabons. However, problems in the acquisition, use, and maintenance of research instnunentation revere found ~ all of the leading um~rersities visited The precise configuration ofthese needy and problems vanes widely. The capabilities of institution and depart- ments to meet Hem do also. University researchers face great difficulty in re placing worn-out or obsolete instrumentation and un acqu~g new Insurgents needed for frontier rev search. A comparison of university instrumentation inventories with those of two leading commercial laboratories reveals that the median age of university equipment is twice Hat of the commercial labora- tories' instrumentation. Even the nation's major research universities have not kept pace in meeting instnunentation needs. Researchers heavily depen- dent upon federal fiends have witnessed grant size fall behind escalating research requirements. As a result, many work with inadequate tools that impair the pace
APPENDIX al (cont'd. ) of research, force closure of lines of inquiry, strain operations and maintenance budgets, and compromise Tic advanced coeducation of graduate students. Start-up funds for new faculty often are shrinking as costs nsc. Support equipment is needed to test, cali- bratc, and augment primary instruments. Often it Is especially difficult to fimd. Funding for operation and maintenance costs is ~ncrcas~nglydif5~cultto obtain. ~ a result, faculty and stunts sacrifice research time to csc routine tasks. Many research facilities are In need of rcno~ration or replacement; federal fielding for these purposes has decreased, however, and undersides lack the Finds to respond. Signs that aging facilities now impede research were found In many laboratones and support facilities. Local university needs vary mdely, reflecting We unique circumstances under which each ~nshtudon operates and the great diversity between and even. - thin Tic five fields studied Present funding policies do not pronde sufficient flexibility to deal with such loch circumstances. When compared with government and commercial laboratones ~sited, most university laboratories fare poorly. The best-equipped industrial laboratones sur- pass almost aD university laboratories ~sited. One university researcher captured the sense of dispanty and observed, Able ivory towers are now ~ industry." The director of one leading industrial research labora- tory described the struggle of university researchers as he has observed them as 'apathetic." When asked to contrast their laboratones with foreign laboratones, a number of university researchers stated Mat many, most notably those ~ Japan and West Germany, arc now superior. CONCLUSION The quality of research ~nstrumentabon in major university laboratones has seriously eroded. Not an, but many researchers ~ the nation's best-fi~nded universities are struggling to work effectively with obsolete tools. The equipment being used In the tom ranked Adversities has a median age twice Mat of the instrumentation available to leading industna] rev search laboratories. Three causes are identified: · a relad~rc decrease In instrumentation support · inflexibility within Me project system · insufficient support for maintenance Three major consequences are: diminished research productivity · reduced training capacity · decline ~ ~ntemadonal comped~vc stems RECOMMENDATIONS Federal policy for Me support of research instep mentation should provide for a basic thre~part firm sing strategy: · strengthen Instrumentation Wading in the pros ject system expand special instn~nentadon programs create in Me National Science Foundation a new, supplemental fonnula Want program to provide needed flexibility to meet diverse insd- tutional needs FUTURE STUDIES Five studies are recommended: 1 ) a thorough analysis of foreign research funding policies and programs and their implications for the competitive stature of American science should be undertaken; 2) a study of cooperative research arrangements between industries aDd universities and Me factors including federal policiesthat encourage and discourage them is needed; 3) the planned assessment of regional instrumentation centers should include consideration of Me concerns documented in Us report 4) universities should assess current instrumentation policies and develop mechanisms and incentives designed to promote effec- dve sharing of instrmnentabon; 5) an assessment of the costs and benefits of federally-mandated equipment inventory and reposing systems should be undertaken. SOURCE: Association of American Universities, 1980. 153
APPENDIX B2 THE NATION'S DETECTING ~ERSITY RESEARCH FACILITIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - OBJECTIVES OF-THE SURVEY This survey of 15 leading universities had three obj ect i ve s : -- Ir; the institutions surveyed, document expenditures for research faci ~ ities and ma jor (SIOO,OOO or more) equipment, without regard to source of funds, over the 1ast four years in the following six fields: Biological Sciences Ch em i c a ~ Sc i en c e s Earth Sc i ences . , ng 1 neer 1 ng Phys i cs - Med i cad School s ~ 10) -- Provide responsible estimates, prepared by those universi- t.ies, of expenditures for research facil ities and ma jor equip- ment that would be required over the next 3 years to meet the research and training needs of only current faculty. -- From researchers and department heads, acquire assessments of the ma jor consequences for science, industry, and government if the accumulating facilities needs of their institutions are not addressed. FINDINGS - In many of the science and engineering departments sur- veyed' a substantial backlog of research facilities and equip- ment needs is accumulating. Pro jected funding needs over the next three years equal almost twice the level of expenditures by universities for their research laboratories and equipment over the past four years. Already, institutions often are un- able to provide their basic science and engineering research- ers and students with either the modern laboratories or equip- ment needed to conduct state-of-the-art research and education p r Tog r ems . The loss of federal contributions to the support of re- search facilities and the absence of compensatory sources of support has forced many institutions to renovate and repair only those facil ities in greatest need. Even this work often is carried out in a necessari ly piecemeal fashion which is un- economical over the long term. Working under such conditions, researchers unavoidably compromise their productivity and future compet i ~ i veness. 154
APPENDIX B2 (cons 'd. ~ Relatively few construction projects have been complet- ed in recent years in a ma jority of the physical sciences and engineering departments surveyed. Many institutions estimate substantial needs for new laboratories, for the expanded mod- ernization and repair of old laboratories and for modern re- search equipment. Detai Is are provided in the fo] lowing re- port and the appendicies. The survey's principal findings are the to ~ ~ owl ng: - In the last four years' for the six fields surveyed' fif- teen leadings universities together spent S400 million from all sources for facilities and ma jor equipment. Half of those expenditures was for a relatively small number of. new construction pro jects; the remaining half, spread. over a larger number of generally less costly funding projects, was for facility modernization, ma jor repair and renovation' and special purpose research equipment. - In the next three Years, the 15 universities estimate they should spend almost twice as much ($765 million) just to pro- vide the necessary research faci ~ ities and speci a] research equipment for current faculty only. These estimates are in current do] lars and, therefore' do not include the added- effects of inflation. - New construction to rep~ace outmoded facilities accounts for a most 60% of total pro jected funding requirements ac ros s a] ~ f ~ e ~ ds . In addition, substantial needs for ma jor research equip- ment were identified in all six fieTUs. ~ Thes~e equipment . estimates include only ma jor items costing at least SIOO,OOO. As the 1980 AAU report to the National Science Foundation found, most departments also have serious de- ficiencies of less costly analytical instrumentation and support equi pment. RECOMMENDATIONS The problems of obsolescence in the nationis university research fact] ities hare been growing for more than a decade. To solve them, a new national investment strategy is needed. That strategy should provide direct, teal anced support for university facilities from federal agencies and provide in- vestment incentives designed to involve industry, the states, and the universities in a coordinated effort. The fo] lowing steps are suggested as starting points: I. Key Executive agencies should develop a mechanism to periodical ly assess the condition of university research laboratories and the consequences for the nation of that condition. Such assessments should involve the Office of 155
APPENDIX B2 (cons 'd. ~ Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture am the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The views of industry and the univer- sities also should be solicited. If the initi a] review corroborates the assessment of this suvey the following recommendations should be cons idered: 2. The facilities and equipment program earlier proposed to be undertaken by the National Science Foundation but deferred should be restored as a priority initiative in FY 1983. 3. The Department of Defense' Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration' the Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Agriculture should establish research instrumentation and facilities rehabilitation programs targeted on the fields of science and engineering of primary significance to their missions. The National Science Foundation should assist in the development, implementation, and coordination of those activities. 4. Incentives should be provided to encourage industries and the states to Join with universities and the federal govern- ment in renewing the nation's university research laboratories. 5. Interest costs incurred in the construction, modernization' renovation, and repair of facilities in which federally sup- ported research programs are carried out should be a] lovable indirect costs under OMB Circular A-21. SOURCE: Association of American Universities, 1981. 156
APPENDIX B3 SYMPOSIUM ON THE RECRUITMENT OF CLINICIANS FOR MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH National Academy of Sciences Auditorium Washington, D.C. June 19, 1980 CHAIRMAN: Dr. Kenneth Clark Rochester University MORNING SESSION 8:00 a.m. REGISTRATION 8:30 OPENING REMARKS: Dr. Gardner Lindzey, Chairman Panel on Behavioral Sciences, Committee on a Study of National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Personnel ADDRESS: Dr. Gerald Klerman, Administrator, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration 9:45 10:00 10:45 11:00 11:45 Noon ADDRESS: Dr. Herbert Pardes, Director National Institutes of Mental Health Questions and Answers: Audience PANEL ON RESEARCH TRAINING ISSUES IN PSYCHIATRY Dr. Theodore Manschreck, Massachusetts General Hospital Dr. Robert Wallerstein, University of California, San Francisco Dr. Daniel Freedman, University of Chicago Questions and Answers: Audience PANEL ON RESEARCH TRAINING ISSUES IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY Dr. Peter Nathan, Rutgers University Dr. Seymour Feshbach, University of California, Los Angeles Dr. Robat Carson, Duke University Questions and Answers: Audience Lunch AFTERNOON SESSION 1:00 p.m. ADDRESS: Dr. David Hamburg, President, Institute of Medicine 157
APPENDIX B3 (cont'd.) 1:30 2:15 PANEL ON RESEARCH TRAINING ISSUES IN PSYCHIATRIC NURSING AND SOCIAL WORK Dr. Ann Burgess, Boston University DT. Dixie Koldjeski, East Carolina University Dr. Scott Bnar University of Washington Questions and Answers: Audience 2:30 PUBLIC COMMENTS Spealcers: Constance Hollows, American Nurses Association Luther Christman, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke s Medical Center, Chicago Michael Pallak, American Psychological Association Hans Strupp and Gloria Waterhouse, Vanderbilt University Pranab Chatterjee, Case Westem Reserve University Chauncey A. Alexander, National Association of Social Workers Arthur J. Katz, Council on Social Work Education Marvin Stein/Jerry Weiner American Association of Chairmen of Departments of Psychiatry 3 :15 CLOSING REMARKS: Dr. Kenneth Clark 3:30 ADJOURNMENT 158
0 ·~ ~3 £ ._ u, o m a: He _ 6~ .O He c: ~ m 0 .e - ed .0 a: m U3 [L .o c: ·} 0 5 8 0 ~ 8 5 i E E ~ = 3 ~ 3 I c E ' ' s s 3 3 ~ - 3 ~ ~ ° s ~ ~ O 3 0 . 3 a e=. 6'l ~ D ~ O ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 3 - 3 a ~ 3 0 0 , , O 3 a E Is, o 1 · 1. . ~ i 3 ~ ~ E ~ ~ = 3 1 ° ~ YOU . S .. GOVERNMENT PR I NT I NG OFF I CE: 159 l O 00 00 _ O c, cat o . e~ z .. 0 u' 1 982-36 ~ - 1 3273809
