Academic Research: Where Do We Go From Here?

These are troubling times for academic scientists. The uncertainties of post-Cold War restructuring of research have yet to be resolved. Federal science policy appears in disarray. Young scientists face the most dismal career prospects in two decades. And the public face of science has been besmirched by widely publicized cases of misconduct. The immediate future looks gloomy indeed for academic science and, thus, for basic research, as well. But even if conditions prove constraining in the short run, a long-run view of American science should provide some cause for hope. However, finding a path out of the predicament in which the basic research community currently finds itself will not be easy, nor will the results be inevitable. Rather, it is likely to depend on decisions being made right now by university leaders. It also may depend to a great extent on the influence exerted by academic scientists involved in basic research. Prompted in part by the current pessimism, I attempted to take a long-run view of the prospects for academic science in a paper for last winter's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A simple question had for some time been in the back of my mind: In a society largely based on science and technology, will an increasing proportion of social resources be devoted to scientific research? Surprisingly, existing literature offered little guidance on so fundamental an issue. The most concrete hypothesis was suggested more than three decades ago by science historian Derek de Solla Price. In his 1963 book Little Science, Big Science (New York, Columbia University Press), he offered evidence that modern science--measured in practitioners and publications--had doubled every 15 years since its inception in the 17th century. However, Price warned that such exponential growth was inherently un-sustainable; indeed, he suggested that it had started to slow in his own day. He was too pessimistic, it turns out. When measured by constant-dollar na-tional expenditures for academic research, science turns out to have doubled in the 15 years from the time Price wrote--and to have doubled again from 1977 to 1992. These figures, of course, might be variously interpreted, since they encompass the post-Sputnik boom (when research grew far more rapidly) and some of the stagnant 1970s (when there was no growth at all). But the performance of the second 15-year period is not only more impressive, but also more germane to our current predicament. From 1962 to 1977, research in the United States doubled against a backdrop of 67 percent real growth in gross domestic product (GDP), so that basic research outpaced the economy by just 50 percent; but from 1977 to 1992, research doubled, while GDP growth was only 40 percent. Three aspects of the expanded investment in basic research deserve emphasis. First, this exponential growth reflects an underlying social demand for basic research. By comparison, applied research grew more slowly from 1977 to 1992, increasing just over 75 percent; and spending for development grew even more slowly (60 percent). Moreover, three-fifths of the growth of basic research came from nonfederal sources, particularly industry. Thus, despite the persistent clamor for usable technology, our economy had a growing appetite above all for basic science. Second, since there is no reason to think that the exponential growth of scientific activity has ceased, the academic communityUs long-range planning should be predicated on expansion of basic research rather than yielding to the prevailing threat of contraction. Third, about half of basic research is performed in universities. Although applied research has grown significantly, it still constitutes about one-third of academic R&D. Conducting basic research remains the foremost role of universities in the national research economy. To grasp the future prospects for academic science, we need to understand how academic research over the last 15 years managed to grow faster than GDP, applied re-search, or development. Here I can only suggest the essence of the situation. At the end of the 1970s, universities were severely criticized for failing to contribute to the competitiveness of the nation by creating and transferring technology to the productive economy. Universities gradually embraced this mission in the 1980s, encouraged by public subsidies for cooperative research and by abundant support for programmatic researchQthat is, research focused on the needs of patrons. A myriad of partnerships between industry and universities were created. These developments were seldom forced; rather, they reflected opportunities on the research frontier. Some of the most dynamic fields involved what former National Academy of Sciences president Frank Press called "research- based technologies"--areas in which challenging basic research yields economically valuable technology, and where technological advancement, in turn, stimulates further basic research. Biotechnology was the paradigmatic case, one that by itself did much to change university attitudes. But the same conditions emerged in optoelectronics, supercon- ductors, sensor technology, advanced materials research, and a host of other fields. By the late 1980s, research universities had essentially made the transition that had been demanded of them: They not only incorporated these emerging technologies into their research portfolios, but also eagerly sought chances to convey findings to the commercial realm. That university research had become more relevant to the economy was strikingly corroborated by gains in the proportion of total basic and applied research performed. More than $2 billion of the $19 billion universities spent on research in 1992 represented their increased proportion of total basic and applied research over the previous five years. Universities are seldom given credit for the transformation that has taken place. Yet, in just a half-generation, largely through differential growth, much of academic science became oriented toward research-based technologies. But, as with any revolution, there have been costs as well as benefits. While there is little compelling evidence that the academic core of the university has been diminished by this revolution, the most palpable changes have occurred on the academic periphery. For example, with the possible exception of engineering, most of the growth associated with programmatic research has occurred in areas with few students, and almost no undergraduates, such as microelectronics. This is especially true for research institutes dedicated to university-industry cooperation. In fact, many research-based technologies require multidisciplinary teams, which operate best in institute settings. One consequence of this has been that the numbers of postdocs and full-time researchers increased far more rapidly than graduate students or faculty. Another consideration is the fact that major institutional initiatives are generally required to establish a presence in new and burgeoning fields. On campuses I have visited, people spoke of these new fields as they pointed to new buildings. These new facilities usually represented a sustained effort that combined public subsidies, private gifts, and commitments of university funds. The question we face today is: Do universities have the will and the capability to sustain such initiatives in order to keep abreast of the opportunities in these dynamic scientific fields? Here, fiscal conditions present one discouragement. Both public and private universities foresee difficulties in maintaining, let alone expanding, current levels of revenue. Talk of retrenchment rather than new initiatives predominates. Still, the major research universities are billion-dollar, multipurpose organizations with some degree of internal discretion over how they use their resources; priorities may be a more important factor for the future of academic research than their apparent poverty. What is particularly discouraging here is that university leaders have become timid and defensive. They complain that their institutions have become overextended, that they can no longer hope to cover the gamut of scientific fields. While selectivity would seem inevitable, their natural proclivity is to contract toward the academic core, the traditional disciplines. Their vision seems to have contracted, as well, toward managerial gimmicks rather than scientific goals. In addition, universities feel exceedingly vulnerable on the issue of undergraduate instruction. Although responsible administrators argue that excellence in teaching and research are both possible, students, the public, and all too many faculty assume that what is good for research will be detrimental to teaching. In sum, universities in the last few years have been reluctant to pursue aggressively the research strategies that proved so successful in the recent past. The 1994-95 academic year could thus be critical for the future trajectory of academic research. In macroscopic terms, the question is: Given the likely persistence of scientific expansion, will universities continue to perform half of the nation's basic research? For them to do so will depend not on federal largess, but rather on the continued encouragement of programmatic re-search for interested sponsors, predominantly in research-based technologies. Should universities choose instead to focus on their academic core, such research will migrate on balance to nonacademic settings. Universities might then become purer, but at the expense of participating in research and teaching in some of the critical technologies of the 21st century. While the decisions of university leaders will largely determine which of these scenarios universities follow, much may also depend on the actions of individual scientists. The recent revolution in academic research was created, above all, by scientists pursuing not only support for their investigations, but also opportunities to do exciting science. The lesson for today should be clear: Scientists should regard the current gloom with detachment, and pursue instead the challenges emerging from the new technologies and their underlying scientific fields. The universities are unlikely to turn their backs to such research or to the new knowledge it promises. And besides, if science is going to double again in the next 15 years, history is on the side of academic science. Roger Geiger is a professor of higher education at Penn State University, University Park, Pa. He is the author of Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II (New York, Oxford University Press, 1993).

Academic Research: Where Do We Go From Here?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of