Resumen de The Public Support of University Research
Fifty years ago Vannever Bush set into motion Federal governmental support of research in academia, as we now know it, with his report to the President entitled "Science the Endless Frontier". As it did then, research today tends to fall into one of two categories: curiosity-driven research and research that has a practical orientation. This is not to say that curiosity-driven research cannot be practical, only that its practicality may not be obvious to many decision-makers or, indeed, to many scientists. Most research is, in fact, difficult to classify as neatly as these two descriptors suggest. In earlier years when Federal resources were more readily available and societal needs were more broadly interpreted, such distinctions were not really important. Many were willing to support curiosity-driven research as long as it didn't cost too much and didn't get in the way of other things. However, in the current environment political leaders are more prone to try to make these distinctions, potentially to the ultimate detriment of the university system of research that has been created over the last fifty years.
The Federally supported research effort has produced a system for the training of PhD's which is second to none and which is the envy of the world. As evidence we need only to note the large number of foreign graduate students that populate American institutions of higher education. This PhD training process benefits the entire country. These benefits derive not only from the programs that exist within individual states and the gains that accrue to those particular states, but more importantly, from the technically trained research personnel who eventually work throughout the nation. From that point of view, the support of research in our universities is properly the concern of the Federal government.
The Federally supported system of PhD research is not without its problems however. Some of these are of a philosophical nature. For example, it is not necessarily the best system for the education of graduate students, nor is a system that draws its members from a research-training environment necessarily commensurate with the development of a well-rounded teaching faculty. The Federally supported research system, which has been strongly encouraged by university administrators, is a good training program for researchers, and it has produced a faculty reward system based on grantsmanship. Research-oriented faculty seem to be perpetually in a grant-writing mode, so much so that they have little time to attend to their teaching obligations. Indeed, in extreme cases (which are not that rare) research faculty often require surrogates to help them meet their teaching obligations. Postdoctoral students teach their graduate students in the laboratory, and junior faculty (instructors) carry their teaching loads in the department, all with the acquiescence of the administration.
Most knowledgeable academics would agree that the education of graduate students is more than research training. Current employers of students with advanced degrees seek persons with more flexibility than the present research-training paradigm tends to produce. The present system of higher education produces students who are, for the most part, narrowly trained and can do only one thing--research. Further, the students produced by the current system tend to be clones of their mentors. Not only does the current research support system produce the "wrong kind"; of personnel for our present needs, it generally tends to perpetuate the support of research areas that are no longer viable. New fields can become established only through management of the administrative personnel in Federal funding agencies. Today the managers of funding agencies are told by their superiors--Congress--that Federally funded research must have an obviously strong component of relevance to the nations' needs, and these needs have been defined by the current administration on the basis of economics. Tomorrow the nature of relevance may be different and a new mandate sent forth. Unfortunately, the time constant, or lag time, for training programs to respond to new mandates is long. A system focused on research output cannot respond rapidly. However, if the focus is on people with easily defined characteristics, the system will always be in a responsive mode.
The philosophy of the present PhD programs will have to be modified to accommodate to the increasing needs of society for graduates who are flexible and adaptable. Many programs are trapped in the historical divisions of chemistry and are ill-suited for the kinds of research that needs to be done at this point in time. Departments have not kept up with the shifting sub-disciplinary foci and the growing disciplinary interdependence, often to the detriment of the departments, their graduates, and the discipline.
The changes brought about by the end of the Cold War may necessitate restructuring our graduate programs to make them more consonant with societies needs. The original Vannever Bush premises - viewed in the context of today's world - may be a good starting point.
