Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, September 19, 1993 TAG: 9309180312
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICK BOUCHER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
I realize, of course, the underlying message that these apparently conflicting signals are intended to convey: The academic-research enterprise is in crisis and needs more money; at the same time, it's the best system in the world and deserves more money. But advocating "more money" as the sole requirement for a healthy, happy research system is like prescribing "more food" as the solution to overpopulation.
My fear is that the stress felt by many research universities will lead to a siege mentality that leaves the research system weaker at a time when the nation is looking to its universities to provide the human and intellectual capital needed to help restore our social and economic vitality. I worry about an academic-research system with resources spread too thinly, with administrators and professors ever more obsessed by fund raising, with a faltering educational vision and a vanishing sense of service to society.
Between 1977 and 1989, the number of academic scientists with doctorates increased by 41 percent, while federal appropriations for academic research and development rose by 72 percent after inflation. Those increases fueled growth in the size, expectations and appetite of our academic-research system that is unsustainable over the long term. Scientists, university administrators and policy planners must recognize that the option of pumping more money into the research system is not available to us.
Those who fight to maintain the status quo for its own sake will emerge from this time of stress enervated and dispirited. Those who view stress as opportunity will emerge with greater strength and vision.
The federal government must establish a more coherent science policy, rooted in the articulation of broad, flexible research priorities. A new science policy should strive to reduce uncertainty about levels of support and scientific goals. The fiscal 1994 budget for the National Science Foundation is an example of such an approach. In it, 51 percent of the money for research and related activities is directed at several "Presidential Initiatives" - research into higher-performance computing and communications, global-change research, advanced manufacturing technology, advanced materials and processing, and biotechnology.
Researchers who rely on these funds have been provided with a planning document that outlines the levels of support the executive branch anticipates for these areas for five years. This greater degree of certainty can help the research community formulate and implement a vision of its own, and establish its priorities based on a realistic assessment of future opportunities and resources.
At the same time, universities must define a new mission that maximizes their contributions to society. They must respond to the challenge to do more with less - to operate more efficiently during times of constrained budgets and to select what they wish to be in this era when they may no longer enjoy the luxury of being all things to all people. Universities must identify their comparative advantages and focus on what each one does best.
Above all, universities must reaffirm - by action, not by rhetoric - that education is their primary mission. A report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology notes that "many higher education institutions ... are turning away from their education mission, particularly undergraduate education. Universities should re-emphasize teaching in all its aspects, both inside and outside the classroom. In doing so, many institutions will have to curtail some of their research activities."
Some universities will be able to continue to do both teaching and research excellently, while others may find they need to focus on one or the other. In promising to reform undergraduate education, universities must confront the difficult issues of whether this means doing less research. Individual universities will have to focus less on research and more on producing scientifically literate college graduates, which is what industry and society need most.
Universities must ensure that non-science majors have the intellectual tools necessary to make informed decisions in a technological world. At the same, science majors must fully understand the ethical implications and cultural context of their chosen career paths and the full range of contributions they can make to society. Academic researchers also must become directly involved in helping train the next generation of science teachers for our elementary and secondary classrooms.
Universities must do a better job of explaining - to themselves and to the public - exactly what it is that they contribute to society. They must demonstrate the effectiveness of their research and teaching. They also must do a better job of drawing members of racial and ethnic minority groups into every aspect of university teaching and research.
Every university will have its own way of grappling with these challenges. Policies on publicaton, teaching loads, tenure and promotion, hiring, scientific misconduct, outside income, and partnerships with foreign corporations will no doubt come under examination. Existing policies are not etched in stone; they have largely arisen in the past 40 years to meet conditions that no longer exist.
Sustainable universities will be those that examine their focus and missions in light of the challenges created by changing conditions and respond in ways that clearly demonstrate that they provide value to our society.
\ Rick Boucher of Abingdon represents the 9th District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and chairs the science subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. This is adapated from an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
by CNB