Notebook

Mikulski Supports Change at NIH Nuclear Engineering Program Gets Boost Industry Expects to Spend Less on R & D Finding Room for Innovative Research Speaking in an NIH auditorium as both a legislator concerned about science and an incumbent seeking reelection, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) told a crowd of more than 500 scientists that federal laws must be changed to meet the needs of the agency's 10,000 intramural scientists and support staff. Mikulski promised her audience, many of whom also are constituents, that "you can count on me" to propose ways to make it easier to recruit and retain talented scientists, to speed up the procurement process, to offer financial incentives for young clinical investigators who otherwise could not afford to pursue research careers, and to provide NIH with a capital improvements budget to rehabilitate aging buildings. During the course of the November 25 session, Mikulski answered questions posed by a seven-member panel of NIH scientists and support staff. The event was the second of NIH director Bernadine Healy's "town meetings," called to let employees air work-related grievances. The Energy Department wants public utility companies to help it shore up sagging academic nuclear engineering programs. A pilot program with Chicago-based Commonwealth Edison, which operates several nuclear power plants, will offer five selected universities up to $100,000 per year for three years to strengthen their undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering departments. "We've been losing departments at the rate of one a year for the past decade," says DOE's Rich Stephens, "and our goal is to continue nuclear engineering as an academic entity by helping departments to attract more students and build up a sufficient research base." The money, half from DOE and half from the utility, will fund student fellowships, new equipment, and small-scale research projects. The idea was proposed last year by Commonwealth Edison chairman James O'Connor. Stephens says he hopes that other utilities with nuclear power plants will follow O'Connor's lead and come forward to support universities in their region. The program involves the universities of Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, along with Purdue University and MIT. The rate of spending on industrial R&D will decline in 1992, and few companies will hire a significant percentage of new graduates, according to a survey of R&D executives conducted by the Industrial Research Institute. The eighth annual survey of IRI member companies, currently numbering 263, which do the bulk of industrial research in the United States, found that only 20 percent of the respondents expect to spend more on R&D than in 1991, and only 12 percent plan to hire more technically skilled college grads than they did in 1991. The survey also found that companies expect to spend more money to respond to government regulatory requirements and to support existing businesses, while pursuing fewer collaborations with universities on precompetitive, basic research. "There is a trend, going back to 1986, that suggests U.S. industry is unlikely to spend more to remain competitive in 1992," says Graham Mitchell, director of planning for GTE Laboratories Inc. in Waltham, Mass., and an IRI board member. When research money is tight, say many scientists, those who review grant applications tend to weed out radically innovative proposals in favor of those that are more traditional in their scientific scope. But bypassing the unusual projects, according to top administrators at NIH, can lead to pedestrian science. "We are seriously considering whether to alter the [peer review] criteria to encourage innovative research," says Claude Lenfant, director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and chairman of a panel that is looking at the peer review system as part of developing a strategic plan for NIH. Lenfant, who last month briefed members of the advisory committee to NIH director Bernadine Healy on the panel's initial deliberations, says his group is looking at such options as a fund for innovative research, using different criteria to judge it, and recruiting reviewers more in tune with new ideas.

Notebook

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of