Common
Dollars
In the debate over appropriate federal support of institutions through our common dollars there has been little common sense. The benefit from advancing science and the use of academic institutions as the seat and source of scientific advancement through federal funding of R&D was proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945 and developed in his volume Science: The Endless Frontier. Unofficially adopted as a guide by some
in government
to prime
progress
in the post World War II
economy, this work holds no official status. Although the importance of science is being questioned by a House Appropriations Subcommittee, many hold that the policy has propelled the U.S. economy and enhanced the quality of society. The direct conduct of research is the raison d’etre of the scientific enterprise and as such represents the essential superstructure from which flows knowledge. It requires, only secondarily, an infrastructure. It is the magnitude of this research superstructure that must dictate the size and shape of the institutional infrastructure.Independent politicalaction for expansion of infrastructure in the face of inadequate funds to fuel the research superstructure is simplistic, unfocused, and should be resisted, and controlled by need. The tendency for autonomy of policy in respect to institutionalinfrastructure must be constrained to meet need and to forcibly redirect funds to the real engine, the direct conduct of research.
A shared
responsibility
for governance
exists between
the
institutional officials and the non-administrative facultyin our seats of research. In a world that is increasingly managed rather than led, the scientific “horses” should take up the yoke and lead. A small step in acceding a role in quality control of the management of an institutionis noted at Washington University, St. Louis, where the listof indirectcosts (IDC) has been subjected to facultyreview. This may avoid embarrassments, but does not fully integrate leadership based in the
intellectual
substance
of our institutions. recent sensationalism, and profitable journalism is the indirect costreimbursement of federal research. Imprecisely conceived and inadequately underA divisive
topic of long vintage,
stood IDC consumes a large federal largess, nearly a third of the NIH extramural budget alone, roughly 2 billion dollars annually. The distinction between direct overhead necessary for the most effective conduct of research and the institutional infrastructure appropriate for the goal of increasing the knowledge
and achievement of our citizens is undefined. This difference between the support of proper overhead and support of infrastructure is an important point of disagreement and should be responsibly resolved. Misconceived as support of the national academic infrastructure, institutional officials guard the privilege and funds. The working laboratory scientist expects appropriate services for the conduct of research. With the shortage of funds, the intensity of the debate increases. The scientist’s goal is to derive significant information. The institution’s role is to sustain an environment and physical facilities for the conduct of science. Both parties to this debate are inclined to preserve the status quo and bicker only over the division of funds. With overhead and infrastructure support commingled to a perceived common good, the excellence-based decisions of granting agencies guided the flow of dollars to conduct research and support infrastructure. The linkage of the latter to the excellence of research, rather than the utility in the public mind, is a politically sensitive issue. Political efforts have frequently succeeded in diverting funds to infrastructure inVol. 6
November
1992
and Sense
dependent of an assessment of the excellence in the eyes of the working scientific community. Misconception abounds on few topicsas thoroughly as on the subject of IDC. After a round of sensationalized reporting by the press and elected officials, the mechanisms have
been under revision by a Task Force based in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Progress may have been influenced by a seriesof discussions and debates between representativesof the major lifescience societies, institutional representativesas well as attendance by observers from the federal government. A short listof principles of appropriate IDC were forwarded to the Task Force to aid in clarification of regulations that define the principles and accountancy of IDC. This included a reluctant concession by
the institutional representatives that there should be some (though undefined) linkage between IDC and the conduct of the actual funded research. It seems to me that a common cause must be forged in light of the increasing explicit criticism of intellectual achievement by government and evident lack of enchantment by the public. One can anticipate an increasingly adversarial advocacy. This may be appropriate, arising from three failings. First,there are insufficient federaldollarsto sustainon one hand the levelof basic and specializedresearch and develop-
ment that is adequate
either to provide
the greatest
advances
or the current and future intellectual capital or on the other hand for sustenance of the institutional infrastructures that have developed over the past 40 years. Second, institutionsappear to view the physical plants and associatedadministrativepersonnel as essential.As they have become increasingly corporate, with centralization of control and the development of CEO-style management they have lost contact with the essence of intellectual discovery and its translation to societal benefit. There may be a misconception that success in scientific achievement results from management alone. Indeed, the government is the first to wish for such strategicsimplicity. Third, our scientific leaders have failedto advance institu-
tional organization. A feudal system has been preserved. It may be more corporate than American industry, divided and frequently self-serving. The faculty have delivered neither sufficient leadership nor advocacy necessary to achieve greater excellence, cost effectiveness,
and creative
originality
in our institutions.
Even though we live in a constitutionally adversarial society, I propose that through common cause, coupled with constructive adversarial advocacy, we may correct the deficiencies in the current system and the adversarial conflict in order to advance a productive and rewarding research enterprise that is of mutual benefit. In pursuit of scientific knowledge, we spend uncommon dollars, which come from the endeavor of the individuals that make up our society. We have the challenge to hone our common sense so as to achieve results of importance, and in the broadest populist sense to deliver a return on this investment. We must take up the mantle of leadership in both scientific discovery and the responsibility for its integration to the benefit of society. This is too important to be left to institutional managers alone. Thomas S. Edgington Department of Immunology The Scripps Research Institute 10666 N. Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
EDITORIAL
3231
www.fasebj.org by Univ Louisiana Dupre Library/Serials Dept (130.70.8.131) on January 13, 2019. The FASEB Journal Vol. ${article.issue.getVolume()}, No. ${article.issue.getIssueNumber
Dollars
In the debate over appropriate federal support of institutions through our common dollars there has been little common sense. The benefit from advancing science and the use of academic institutions as the seat and source of scientific advancement through federal funding of R&D was proposed by Vannevar Bush in 1945 and developed in his volume Science: The Endless Frontier. Unofficially adopted as a guide by some
in government
to prime
progress
in the post World War II
economy, this work holds no official status. Although the importance of science is being questioned by a House Appropriations Subcommittee, many hold that the policy has propelled the U.S. economy and enhanced the quality of society. The direct conduct of research is the raison d’etre of the scientific enterprise and as such represents the essential superstructure from which flows knowledge. It requires, only secondarily, an infrastructure. It is the magnitude of this research superstructure that must dictate the size and shape of the institutional infrastructure.Independent politicalaction for expansion of infrastructure in the face of inadequate funds to fuel the research superstructure is simplistic, unfocused, and should be resisted, and controlled by need. The tendency for autonomy of policy in respect to institutionalinfrastructure must be constrained to meet need and to forcibly redirect funds to the real engine, the direct conduct of research.
A shared
responsibility
for governance
exists between
the
institutional officials and the non-administrative facultyin our seats of research. In a world that is increasingly managed rather than led, the scientific “horses” should take up the yoke and lead. A small step in acceding a role in quality control of the management of an institutionis noted at Washington University, St. Louis, where the listof indirectcosts (IDC) has been subjected to facultyreview. This may avoid embarrassments, but does not fully integrate leadership based in the
intellectual
substance
of our institutions. recent sensationalism, and profitable journalism is the indirect costreimbursement of federal research. Imprecisely conceived and inadequately underA divisive
topic of long vintage,
stood IDC consumes a large federal largess, nearly a third of the NIH extramural budget alone, roughly 2 billion dollars annually. The distinction between direct overhead necessary for the most effective conduct of research and the institutional infrastructure appropriate for the goal of increasing the knowledge
and achievement of our citizens is undefined. This difference between the support of proper overhead and support of infrastructure is an important point of disagreement and should be responsibly resolved. Misconceived as support of the national academic infrastructure, institutional officials guard the privilege and funds. The working laboratory scientist expects appropriate services for the conduct of research. With the shortage of funds, the intensity of the debate increases. The scientist’s goal is to derive significant information. The institution’s role is to sustain an environment and physical facilities for the conduct of science. Both parties to this debate are inclined to preserve the status quo and bicker only over the division of funds. With overhead and infrastructure support commingled to a perceived common good, the excellence-based decisions of granting agencies guided the flow of dollars to conduct research and support infrastructure. The linkage of the latter to the excellence of research, rather than the utility in the public mind, is a politically sensitive issue. Political efforts have frequently succeeded in diverting funds to infrastructure inVol. 6
November
1992
and Sense
dependent of an assessment of the excellence in the eyes of the working scientific community. Misconception abounds on few topicsas thoroughly as on the subject of IDC. After a round of sensationalized reporting by the press and elected officials, the mechanisms have
been under revision by a Task Force based in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Progress may have been influenced by a seriesof discussions and debates between representativesof the major lifescience societies, institutional representativesas well as attendance by observers from the federal government. A short listof principles of appropriate IDC were forwarded to the Task Force to aid in clarification of regulations that define the principles and accountancy of IDC. This included a reluctant concession by
the institutional representatives that there should be some (though undefined) linkage between IDC and the conduct of the actual funded research. It seems to me that a common cause must be forged in light of the increasing explicit criticism of intellectual achievement by government and evident lack of enchantment by the public. One can anticipate an increasingly adversarial advocacy. This may be appropriate, arising from three failings. First,there are insufficient federaldollarsto sustainon one hand the levelof basic and specializedresearch and develop-
ment that is adequate
either to provide
the greatest
advances
or the current and future intellectual capital or on the other hand for sustenance of the institutional infrastructures that have developed over the past 40 years. Second, institutionsappear to view the physical plants and associatedadministrativepersonnel as essential.As they have become increasingly corporate, with centralization of control and the development of CEO-style management they have lost contact with the essence of intellectual discovery and its translation to societal benefit. There may be a misconception that success in scientific achievement results from management alone. Indeed, the government is the first to wish for such strategicsimplicity. Third, our scientific leaders have failedto advance institu-
tional organization. A feudal system has been preserved. It may be more corporate than American industry, divided and frequently self-serving. The faculty have delivered neither sufficient leadership nor advocacy necessary to achieve greater excellence, cost effectiveness,
and creative
originality
in our institutions.
Even though we live in a constitutionally adversarial society, I propose that through common cause, coupled with constructive adversarial advocacy, we may correct the deficiencies in the current system and the adversarial conflict in order to advance a productive and rewarding research enterprise that is of mutual benefit. In pursuit of scientific knowledge, we spend uncommon dollars, which come from the endeavor of the individuals that make up our society. We have the challenge to hone our common sense so as to achieve results of importance, and in the broadest populist sense to deliver a return on this investment. We must take up the mantle of leadership in both scientific discovery and the responsibility for its integration to the benefit of society. This is too important to be left to institutional managers alone. Thomas S. Edgington Department of Immunology The Scripps Research Institute 10666 N. Torrey Pines Rd. La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
EDITORIAL
3231
www.fasebj.org by Univ Louisiana Dupre Library/Serials Dept (130.70.8.131) on January 13, 2019. The FASEB Journal Vol. ${article.issue.getVolume()}, No. ${article.issue.getIssueNumber
